Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Miura Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution ... on 17 February, 2025
1/6
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 796 of 2025
M/S MIURA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. versus CHHATTISGARH
STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.
Order on Board
17/02/2025
Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate alongwith
Mr. Udit Khatri and Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava,
Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1
& 2.
Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Heard on I. A. No.01/2025, an application for grant
of interim relief.
By the present writ petition, the petitioner is
questioning the communication dated 12/12/2024
(Annexure P/1) and letter dated 25/10/2024 (Annexure
P/2) issued by respondent/ Chhattisgarh State Power
Distribution Company Ltd. (CSPDCL) by which the
request of the petitioner to waive the default or any
previous dues by the earlier owner i.e. M/s Shri Metcast
Pvt. Ltd. and for grant of new electricity connection has
been rejected stating that the application for new
electricity connection at the premises of Plot No.14/D,
Heavy Industrial Area, Bhilai, can be processed only
after clearance of outstanding due amount of
Rs.47,30,430/- of M/s Shri Metcast Pvt. Ltd., the earlier
owner.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the subject land was purchased
by M/s Shri Damodar Industries in an e-auction sale
notice published in exercise of power conferred under
the provision of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by the
Authorised Officer of the Central Bank of India. After the
sale of the said property free from all encumbrances
known to the secured creditor, thereafter, the petitioner
vide application dated 28/08/2024 (Annexure P/8)
alongwith requisite documents sought NOC from the
Chief Manager, which was granted by the authority on
29/08/2024 and subsequently, the District Trade &
Industries Centre, Durg has also granted permission to
the petitioner for transfer of the land in question vide
order dated 02/09/2024 (Annexure P/10). Pursuance to
the same, a lease deed was executed on 03/09/2024 in
favour of the petitioner.
Learned senior counsel would further submit that
after transfer of execution of lease deed, the petitioner
moved applications before the CSPDCL on 14/10/2024
and 18/10/2024 to waive the default or any previous
dues by the earlier owner i.e. M/s Shri Metcast Pvt. Ltd.
and for a new electricity connection in the premises
which has been taken by the petitioner on lease from
M/s Shri Damodar Industries who has purchased the
property in an e-auction under the SARFAESI Act,
2002.
Learned counsel would also submit that pursuance
to the said communication dated 12/12/2024, the
respondent No.2/ Superintending Engineer (City
Circle), CSPDCL, Durg has asked the petitioner to clear
the outstanding dues amounting to Rs.47,30,430/- with
respect to M/s Shri Metcast Pvt. Ltd. so that for a new
electricity connection, the request of petitioner can be
processed. He further contends that the communication
by which the respondent/CSPDCL has directed to clear
the outstanding dues amounting to Rs.47,30,430/- was
not a condition while M/s Shri Damodar Industries from
whom the petitioner has taken the premises on lease.
Even due to the financial condition of the petitioner,
presently the petitioner is not able to clear the entire
amount however he would submit that the petitioner is
ready to deposit 50% of the total dues towards the
liability of the earlier owner M/s Shri Metcast Pvt. Ltd.
and for the rest 50%, the petitioner shall submit bank
guarantee to the CSPDCL and the respondent be
directed to consider the request of petitioner and
process for new electricity connection to the premises
which has been taken by the petitioner under the lease
executed between the petitioner and M/s Shri
Damodar Industries.
By placing reliance upon the decision rendered by
the Supreme Court in the matter of Southern Power
Distribution Company of Telangana Limited & Ors.
vs. Gopal Agrawal & Ors. reported in (2018) 12 SCC
644, learned counsel would submit that the purchaser
in an auction-sale conducted by the Official Liquidator
on "as-is-where-is" and "whatever-there-is" basis was
found not liable for payment of the electricity arrears
and the petitioner is also a lease holder of a property
from an auction purchaser and the petitioner is not
entitled to pay any arrears of the electricity of earlier
owner.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/ CSPDCL, on instruction, submits that the
petitioner is not the appropriate party who can question
the dues of the earlier owner of the property because
M/s Shri Damodar Industries has purchased the
property in question under an e-auction under the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the said Industry never
questioned the liability of electricity dues which is due
because of non-payment of the earlier owner of the
property. He further submits that the petitioner has
never submitted any application for new electricity
connection. As per clause 4.19 of the Supply Code,
2011, the petitioner is liable to clear the entire dues of
the previous owner before processing of application for
new electricity connection.
In support of his contention, he would place reliance
upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of K. C. Ninan vs. Kerala State
Electricity Board & Ors. reported in (2023) SCC
OnLine SC 663, to submit that as per Section 49 of the
Act of 1948, the new owner of the premises to clear the
electricity arrears of the previous owner as a
precondition to avail electricity supply will have a
statutory character.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the pleadings as well as the reply submitted by
the respondents to the interim application.
The present matter appears to be arguable and the
same needs final hearing.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, purely as an interim measure, it is directed
that on the event of depositing the amount of 50% of
the total outstanding dues i.e. Rs.47,30,430/- with
respect to the M/s Shri Metcast Pvt. Ltd. and submitting
bank guarantee for remaining 50% and submitting a
fresh application by the petitioner for a new electricity
connection in the premises i.e. Plot No.14/D, Heavy
Industrial Area, Bhilai, the respondents/CSPDCL shall
process the said application for new electricity
connection in the said premises within a further period
of 15 days from the date of receipt of application of the
petitioner along with deposit of amount and the Bank
Guarantee as stated supra.
It is made clear that the amount and bank
guarantee so deposited by the petitioner is subject to
final outcome of the writ petition.
Post it after three weeks.
In the meanwhile, respondents may file reply to the
writ petition.
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Judge
$. Bhilwar
