K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
1. When the Kerala Financial Corporation exercising their power under Section 29 auctioned an industrial premises named M/s. Arjun Associates, the appellant/writ petitioner was the successful bidder. The bid was confirmed in her favour and the property was conveyed to her. Later she applied for electric connection in that premises. The K.S.E. Board there upon demanded the arrears of electricity charges payable by the former consumer. It was because of the arrears the electricity supply had been disconnected from the premises earlier. This demand in Ext. P4 was challenged in O.P. 10658/98. The challenge failed. Therefore this Writ Appeal.
2. It is contended by the appellant that the electric supply is given not to the premises but for the use of the owner of the premises. The appellant is the present owner of the premises. She had obtained it in an auction conducted by the Kerala Financial Corporation. Therefore she is in no way liable for the dues payable by the former owner or consumer as the case may be. She is in need of power supply. She applied for it. She shall be given power supply without insisting for payment of dues of the former owner or consumer.
3. On the other hand, attempting to sustain the judgment impugned, it is contended by the standing counsel that the question raised by the appellant is no longer res Integra in the light of the two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Ramachandran v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (2) KLT 694) and in K.J. Dennia and Ors. v. Official Liquidator and Ors. (AIR 2001 Kerala 380). Therefore there arises no question of any interference. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that when there is an earlier Divisional Bench on the point to the contra, the subsequent Division Bench ought not have taken a different view without referring the matter to a larger Bench. Therefore the issue deserves consideration by a larger bench as there is conflict of views by two Division Benches.
4. According to us there is no conflict of views. The earlier Division Bench in Souriyar Luka v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 1959 KLT 14, had examined the issue in the perspective of Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 and held that the purchaser of a property does not have the liability to clear off the dues payable by his predecessor in title and the subsequent purchaser shall be treated as a fresh applicant and not a successor in interest. Only when the latter is the successor in interest, the liability of the predecessor in interest would fall upon the latter. Clause 15(e) of the Regulations relating to Conditions of Supply of Electric Energy has not been considered in that case, obviously because there was no such provision. Equally so is the decision of the Apex Court reported in Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board, 1995(2) SCC 648. There also the demand was not sought to be sustained based on any statutory provision.
5. On the other hand the other two Division Bench decisions reported in Ramachandran v. K.S.E.B., 2000 (2) KLT 694 and in K.J. Dennis & etc. v. Official Liquidator and Ors. (AIR 2001 Kerala 380) have examined the impact of Clause 15(e) of the said Regulation. The said Regulation has a statutory backing on the basis of Section 79(j) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Clause 15(e) reads as under:
'Reconnection or new connection shall not be given to any premises where there are arrears on any account due to the Board pending payment, unless the arrears including penalty, if any, are cleared in advance. If the new owner/occupier/allottee remits the amount due from the previous consumer, the Board shall provide reconnection or a new connection depending on whether the service remains disconnected/dismantled, as the case may be. The amount so remitted will be adjusted against the dues from the previous consumer. If the Board gets the full dues from the previous consumer through R.R. action or other legal proceedings the amount remitted by the new owner/occupier to whom connection has been effected shall be refunded. But the amount already remitted by him/her shall not bear any interest.'
In the light of this statutory provision it is incumbent on the new owner/occupier or allottee to remit the dues payable by the previous consumer. Then alone the Electricity Board is obliged to provide reconnection or new connection, as the case may be, to the new owner. Thus in the light of the law providing for such demand, it cannot be taken that there was conflict between the two Division Benches as submitted by the counsel for the appellant.
6. The Apex Court also did not, in the decision in Isha Marble Case have occasion to consider the statutory provision like Clause 15(e). Therefore that decision is also of no avail to the appellant to seek interference with the impugned judgment.
7. The appellant in such situation also attempted to contend that Clause 15(e) of the regulation is ultra vires and arbitrary, because nobody can be mulcted with a liability which he had not caused. The purchaser of a property cannot be made liable, arbitrarily, for the dues payable by the previous owner who committed default in paying electricity bills. But unfortunately no prayer in the O.P. impugning the Clause 15(e) of the Regulations, enabling the respondent Board to counter this contention by advancing arguments had been incorporated. Even if there was such a prayer we could not have accepted it, because the vires of that provision has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision in K.J. Dennis and etc. v. Official Liquidator and Ors. (AIR 2001 Kerala 380) and found legal and sustainable.
8. In desperate, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that even in such circumstances the Board shall be directed to collect the arrears from the previous owner/consumer and it shall be directed to be refunded to the appellant. For this prayer the second limb of Clause 15(e) is relied on.
9. Going by Clause 15(e) new owner shall not always be liable to pay the dues of the former consumer. If the new owner requires re-connection or new connection to the very same premises, he shall be liable to pay the dues payable by the former consumer or owner, as the case may be. It is to obtain such new connection that the subsequent owner has to pay the dues of the former owner. In such circumstances, even though amount so remitted by the new owner will be adjusted against the liability of the former owner, it is incumbent on the Electricity Board to realise the dues payable by the former owner. The Board has bounden duty to recover the amount from the real defaulter. Expeditious steps shall be taken by the Board in this regard and the amount collected shall be refunded to the appellant. W.A. is disposed of.