1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1441 OF 2009 Mrs. Anju Suryaprakash Demda ... Petitioner vs The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. ... Respondents ------ Shri Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate, for petitioner. Shri H.M.Karwa, Advocate, for the Respondents. ------ Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre and M. T. Joshi, JJ. Date : 28th June 2011. P. C. 01. The petitioner has approached this court, contending that the respondents have committed an error while calculating the amount payable as electricity charges, in accordance with regulation no. 10.5, framed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2005. 02. The petitioner, who is the proprietress of M/s Akanksha International, claims that M/s Akanksha International is a new entity and she had purchased the property which was initially 2 owned by M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd., in an auction purchase. The said M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. owed an amount of ` 3,67,94,628/= to the State Bank of India, on account of the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Finacial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner purchased the secured property which was auctioned by the Bank to recover its debts. The sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner, on 15.5.2006. The petitioner applied for a new electricity connection in January-2007. She was informed by the respondents that an amount of ` 3,30,78,926.87 was outstanding as the electricity charges payable by M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 03. A writ petition, being writ petition No.3472 of 2007, was preferred by the petitioner, wherein she had contended that as an auction purchaser, the arrears of the earlier consumer could not be demanded from her. The said writ petition was dismissed. This court came to the conclusion that M/s Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner in the present case, were the members of the same family and had formed a private company. The property was later purchased in the name of one of the members of the 3 family. The purchaser of the property was the wife of one of the directors of the company and had no independent income. This finding of the Division Bench has not been upset by the Supreme Court and the Petitioner has accepted the same. In these circumstances, the petitioner's concern i.e M/s Akanksha International cannot be considered as a new concern requiring a new electricity connection. 04. The submissions of Mr. Bhandari, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the calculation of the amount claimed from the petitioner is incorrect and that the undertaking sought by the Respondent was not in accordance with regulation No.10.5, are untenable. The petitioner's establishment cannot be considered as a new concern and, therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the order impugned in the present petition. 05. The petition is rejected. (M. T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/wp1441.09