Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Kumar Mangal vs Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut ... on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25600
1 WP-39005-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 39005 of 2024
AMIT KUMAR MANGAL
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDHYUT VITARAN
COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Hemant Singh Rana - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Himanshu Gupta - Advocate for respondents.
Reserved on : 06/10/2025
Delivered on : 10/10/2025
ORDER
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India has been filed by the petitioner claiming the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the impugned order dated 02.10.2024
vide Annexure-P/1 passed by the respondent
authority may kindly be set aside and the
respondents authority may kindly be directed to
provide the permanent electric connection to the
petitioner home situated at Plot No.24, Anand
Nagar, District Gwalior (M.P.).
(ii) That, respondents authority to be directed to
provide the entire benefit as granted to the holder
of the permanent electric connection from the date
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25600
2 WP-39005-2024
of 20.04.2024 and the fees as deposited by the
petitioner be adjusted in the further proceeding.
(iii) That, any other just and proper relief
warranting under the facts and circumstances of the
case including the cost of the litigation be also
given to the petitioner, in the ends of justice."
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the petition are as under:
3.1 The petitioner herein purchased an immovable property
(building) situated at Plot No.24, Anand Nagar, District Gwalior (M.P.)
from one Manish Shivhare vide registered sale deed dated 10.03.2023.
Prior to this, the construction on Plot Nos.24, 24-A, 24-B, at Anand
Nagar Colony, developed by the Gwalior Development Authority, was
under encroachment by one Ansar Khan S/o Kadar Khan, Akbar Khan
S/o Sultan Khan and Smt. Jannat Begum. The said encroachment was
subsequently removed by the Gwalior Development Authority and the
Plot No.24 was transferred in favour of one Smt. Mohini Devi, who sold
the plot to Manish Shivhare. Shri Manish Shivhare, after obtaining a
temporary electricity connection for the said plot, raised construction
thereon. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the constructed building
from Manish Shivhare.
3.2When the petitioner applied for grant of permanent electricity
connection in the building situated at Plot No.24, the petitioner was
informed by the respondents, vide Annexure-P/1, that certain arrears of
electricity dues are outstanding in respect of the premises in question.
Therefore, unless and until the said arrears are cleared, the permanent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25600
3 WP-39005-2024
electricity connection cannot be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per
the respondent's own showing, Plot Nos.24 and 24-A were previously
under encroachment of Ansar Khan, Akbar Khan and Jannat Begum,
who had defaulted in payment of electricity bills, which admittedly
became due in the year 2018. Once the respondent authorities failed to
recover the said dues from the actual defaulters, the petitioner, being a
subsequent bona fide purchaser, cannot be held liable to pay such dues
for grant of permanent electricity connection. It is the responsibility of
the respondent authorities to recover the dues from those persons
against whom the liabilities are actually pending.
5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a temporary
electricity connection was granted by the respondents to Shri Manish
Shivhare upon payment of prescribed fee, and even at that time, the
respondent authorities did not disclose the existence of any pending
dues. Therefore, the petitioner, being a bona fide and subsequent
purchaser, cannot now be saddled with the liabilities of the earlier
defaulters. It is further submitted that the arrears of electricity dues have
now become time barred and therefore, they are irrecoverable. In
support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon
the judgment of this Court in the case of M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut
Co. Ltd. Vs. Electricity Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and
Another, 2009 (4) MPHT 495.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents, while
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25600
4 WP-39005-2024
referring to the return filed, submits that on the basis of the registered
sale deed pertaining to the plot in question, a permanent electricity
connection was earlier granted to Smt. Jannat Begum W/o Akbar Khan
and one Ansar Khan. These individuals not only defaulted in payment of
electricity bills, but were also found involved in a case of electricity
theft. As on date, the following electricity dues are outstanding in
respect of Service Connection No.N2427009616 at the premises in
question; arrears towards electricity bills amounting to Rs.1,11,816/-,
additional dues of Rs.1,76,618/-, and dues on account of theft of
electricity amounting to Rs.5,28,513/-, aggregating to a total of
Rs.8,16,947/-. Learned counsel submits that unless and until the
aforesaid dues are paid, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of a
permanent electricity connection in terms of Clause 4.17 of Chapter 4 of
the M.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2021.
7. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that the issue
involved in the present writ petition has already been conclusively
decided by this Court in the case of Mahila Kamla Dubey Vs. M.P.
Vidyut Mandal, Gwalior, ILR (2010) MP 598; and (Devendra Singh
Kushwah Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd.)
in W.P. No.8013/2019, decided on 03.07.2019, and (Pradeep Soni Vs.
M.P. State Electricity Board and Others ) in W.P. No.796/2007, decided
on 15.01.2025. Accordingly, in light of the above judgments, learned
counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25600
5 WP-39005-2024
parties.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10.The sole issue which arises for consideration before this Court
is as to whether, in view of Clause 4.17 of Chapter 4 of the M.P.
Electricity Supply Code, 2021, is a lawful for the respondents to decline
the grant of permanent electricity connection to the petitioner on the
ground that there are arrears of electricity dues outstanding in respect of
the premises in question.
11.Clause 4.17 of Chapter 4 of the M.P. Electricity Supply Code,
2021, reads as under:
"4.17 If the consumer, in respect of an earlier
agreement executed in his name or in the name of a
firm or company with which he was associated
either as a partner, director or managing director or
as occupier and/or owner of the premises, has any
arrears of electricity dues or other dues for the
premises where the new connection is applied for
and such dues are payable to the licensee, the
requisition for supply may not be entertained by the
licensee until the dues are paid in full. In case of a
person occupying a new property, it will be the
obligation of that person to check the bills for the
previous months or in case of disconnected supply,
the amount due as per the licensee's record
immediately before his occupation and ensure that
all outstanding electricity dues as specified in the
bills are duly paid up and discharged. The licensee
shall be obliged to issue a certificate of the amount
outstanding from the connection that was installed
or is installed in such premises on request made by
such person. The licensee may refuse to supply
electricity to such premises through the already
existing connection having dues or refuse to give a
new connection to such premises till such
outstanding dues to the licensee are paid in full."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25600
6 WP-39005-2024
12.The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of this Court in the
case of Mahila Kamla Dubey (supra) reads as under:
"8. The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory
Commission has made a Code, named as 'Madhya
Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2004' in exercise
of powers conferred by Section 43(1) read with
Section 181(t), Section 44, read with Section
181(1), Section 47(1) read with Section 181(v),
Section 47(4) read with Section 181(w), Section 47
(2, 3 and 5), Section 48(b), Section 50 read with
Section 181(2x) and Section 56 of the Electricity
Act, 2003 (No. 36 of 2003), Section 9(j) of
of 2001) and all other powers enabling it in that
behalf and the draft of the same having been
previously published in the official gazette as
required under Section 181(3), to govern supply
and retail sale of electricity by the licensees and
procedures thereof, the powers, functions and
obligations of the licensees and the rights and
obligations of consumers, and matters connected
therewith and incidental thereto. Section 4.17
thereof prescribes that if any arrears of electricity
dues or other dues for the premises where the new
connection is applied the requisition for supply may
not be entertained by the licensee until the dues are
paid in full. The relevant provision is as under :
"4.17 If the consumer, in respect of an
earlier agreement executed in his name
or in the name of a firm or company
with which he was associated either as a
partner, director or managing director,
has any arrears of electricity dues or
other dues for the premises where the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25600
7 WP-39005-2024
new connection is applied for and such
dues are payable to the licensee, the
requisition for supply may not be
entertained by the licensee until the dues
are paid in full. In case of a person
occupying a new property, it will be the
obligation of that person to check the
bills for the previous months or, in case
of disconnected supply, the amount due
as per the licensee's records immediately
before his occupation and ensure that all
outstanding electricity dues as specified
in the bills are duly paid up and
discharged. The licensee shall be obliged
to issue a certificate of the amount
outstanding from the connection that was
installed or is installed in such premises
on request made by such person. The
licensee may refuse to supply electricity
to the premises through the already
existing connection or refuse to give a
new connection to the premises till such
outstanding dues to the licensee are
cleared."
9. From the aforesaid statutory provision, it is
clear that the petitioner has to clear the arrears of
electricity dues of the premises where the new
connection has been applied. The analogous
provision to the aforesaid provision has been
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and
others v. DVS Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and
others, 2009 (2) MPLJ 61, where the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:
"9. The supply of electricity by a
distributor to a consumer is 'sale of
goods'. The distributor as the supplier,
and the owner/occupier of a premises
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25600
8 WP-39005-2024
with whom it enters into a contract for
supply of electricity are the parties to the
contract. A transferee of the premises or
a subsequent occupant of a premises
with whom the supplier has no privity of
contract cannot obviously be asked to
pay the dues of his predecessor in title or
possession, as the amount payable
towards supply of electricity does not
constitute a 'charge' on the premises. A
purchaser of a premises, cannot be
foisted with the electricity dues of any
previous occupant, merely because he
happens to be the current owner of the
premises. The supplier can therefore
neither file a suit nor initiate revenue
recovery proceedings against a purchaser
of a premises for the outstanding
electricity dues of the vendor of the
premises, in the absence of any contract
to the contrary.
10. But the above legal position is not
of any practical help to a purchaser of a
premises. When the purchaser of a
premises approaches the distributor
seeking a fresh electricity connection to
its premises for supply of electricity, the
distributor can stipulate the terms subject
to which it would supply electricity. It
can stipulate as one of the conditions for
supply, that the arrears due in regard to
the supply of electricity made to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25600
9 WP-39005-2024
premises when it was in the occupation
of the previous owner/occupant, should
be cleared before the electricity supply is
restored to the premises or a fresh
connection is provided to the premises. If
any statutory rules govern the conditions
relating to sanction of a connection or
supply of electricity, the distributor can
insist upon fulfilment of the
requirements of such rules and
regulations. If the rules are silent, it can
stipulate such terms and conditions as it
deems fit and proper, to regulate its
transactions and dealings. So long as
such rules and regulations or the terms
and conditions are not arbitrary and
unreasonable, Courts will not interfere
with them.
11. A stipulation by the distributor
that the dues in regard to the electricity
supplied to the premises should be
cleared before electricity supply is
restored or a new connection is given to
a premises, cannot be termed as
unreasonable or arbitrary. In the absence
of such a stipulation, an unscrupulous
consuraer may commit defaults with
impunity, and when the electricity
supply is disconnected for non-payment,
may sell away the property and move on
to another property, thereby making it
difficult, if not impossible for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25600
10 WP-39005-2024
distributor to recover, the dues. Having
regard to the very large number of
consumers of electricity and the frequent
moving or translocating of industrial,
commercial and residential
establishments, provisions similar to
clause 4.3(g) and (h) of Electricity
Supply Code are necessary to safeguard
the interests of the distributor. We do not
find anything unreasonable in a
provision enabling the
distributor/supplier, to disconnect
electricity supply if dues are not paid, or
where the electricity supply has already
been disconnected for non-payment,
insist upon clearance of arrears before a
fresh electricity connection is given to
the premises. It is obviously the duty of
the purchasers/ occupants of premises to
satisfy themselves that there are no
electricity dues before purchasing/
occupying a premises. They can also
incorporate in the deed of sale or lease,
appropriate clauses making the
vendor/lessor responsible for clearing the
electricity dues up to the date of
sale/lease and for indemnity in the event
they are made liable. Be that as it may."
13.Relying on the aforesaid judgment of this Court in the case of
Mahila Kamla Dubey (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
been pleased to dismiss an identical writ petition bearing W.P.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25600
11 WP-39005-2024
No.796/2007 (Pradeep Soni Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board and
Others) in the following terms:
"1. At the outset, counsel for respondent has
placed reliance in the matter of Mahila Kamla
Dubey Vs. Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Mandal,
Gwalior and Ors., reported in 2010 (1) MPLJ Page
6 1 2 , and has argued that the controversy as
involved in the present case has been put to rest
and refusal by Electricity Board to grant a new
electricity connection on the ground that there is
overdue against the old electricity connection has
held to be good in wake of Section 4.17 of the
Electricity Supply Code, 2004, therefore, nothing
survives in this petition.
2. The aforesaid aspect could not be controverted
by counsel for the petitioner- Shri D.P.Singh.
3. Thus, since the controversy as raised in
present petition has already been settled by this
Court in the aforesaid matter, no interference is
required in the present case.
4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. "
14.In the instant case, the petitioner had purchased the premises in
question through a registered sale deed from one Manish Shivhare.
Therefore, in view of Clause 4.17 of the M.P. Electricity Supply Code,
2004, as interpreted by this Court in the case of Mahila Kamla Dubey
(supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
o f Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others v. DVS Steels
and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2009 (2) MPLJ 61, the action of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25600
12 WP-39005-2024
respondents in insisting upon payment of arrears of electricity dues
pending against the premises in question as a pre-condition for grant of
new permanent electricity connection, cannot be said to be arbitrary,
illegal or unjustified. Even the judgment relied upon by the counsel for
the petitioner in the case of M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.
Ltd. (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner. On the contrary, the
said judgment also places reliance upon the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
(supra) and, in fact, goes against the petitioner. The Court declined
interference in the writ appeal preferred on behalf of the power
transmission company in the said case on the ground that the property
was purchased by the purchaser in a Court auction, which is not the
factual situation present in the instant case.
15.It is pertinent to mention here that the sale deed executed in
favour of the petitioner by Shri Manish Shivhare contains also the
following Clause:
" यह क उपरो भवन हर कार के ऋण भार से पाक व साफ
है । भूिम कह भी रहन, वय, हवा आ द नह ं है । शासक य अथवा
बक का कोई बकाया नह ं है । ऐसा व ास मुझ व े ता ने े ता को
दला दया है । य द आज दनांक से पहले का कोई कर, नल,
बजली लीज रट आ द का चाज बाक होगा तो उसक संपूण
ज मेदार मुझ व े ता पर होगी। अब े ता अपने नाम का इ ाज
तहसील वािलयर, वािलयर नगर पािलका िनगम, वािलयर
वकास ािधकरण व हर थान पर दज करा लेवे और भ व य का
कर, लीज रट, फ स आ द कायम कराकर अदा कर।"
16.Taking overall view in the given facts and circumstances of the
case, the issue involved in the instant writ petition stands squarely
answered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahila Kamla
Dubey (supra) and Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra). In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25600
13 WP-39005-2024
view of the law laid down therein, no case for interference is made out
in the present petition.
17.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
18.Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Adnan
