SPECIAL OFFICER, COMMERCE, NORTH EASTERN ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF ORISSA (NESCO) & ANR.versusM/S RAGHUNATH PAPER MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

                   (2012] 13 S.C.R. 71


  SPECIAL OFFICER, COMMERCE, NORTH EASTERN                    A
ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF ORISSA (NESCO) & ANR.
                             v.
  M/S RAGHUNATH PAPER MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED &
                         ANR.
           (Civil Appeal No. 7899 of 2012)                    B
                  NOVEMBER 09, 2012
      [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

     Electricity- Application for power supply connection - By C
the owner of the premises, who had purchased the property
of a company in liquidation through auction - The distributing
licencee demanding arrears of electricity dues outstanding
against the premises in question as per Regulation 13(10)(b)
of Electricity Code, 2004 - Writ Petition by the applicant D
seeking quashing of the demand letter and direction for
electric supply - Single Judge directing to provide electricity
connection - Order confirmed by Division Bench of High
Court - On appeal, held: Orders of the courts below are correct
- The application was for fresh service connection and not for E
transfer thereof from the name of the erstwhile company -
Therefore Regulation 13(1 O)(b) not applicable and the
applicant was not liable to pay the arrears - Section 43 of
Electricity Act casts a duty on the licencee to give power
supply on an application - The terms and conditions uls. 43 F
does not include payment of arrears of dues - Orissa
Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of
Supply) Code, 2004 - Regulations 3, 10 and 13(10)(b) -
Electricity Act, 2004 - s. 43.

     The respondent No. 1 purchased the unit in question      G
in an auction sale conducted by Official Liquidator on "as
Is where is" and "whatever there is" basis. As there was
no supply of electricity in the unit, he made application
for power supply. The appellant, instead of supplying
                            71                                H
    72      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 13 S.C.R.

A power, directed respondent No. 1 to pay the arrears of
  electricity dues outstanding against the premises in
  question.

      Respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition praying for
  quashing of the demand letter. Single Judge of High
8
  Court allowed the Petition, directing the appellant to
  provide electricity to the unit. Writ Appeal against the
  order of the Single Judge was dismissed by Division
  Bench of the High Court. Hence the present appeal.

C        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1. Sub-clause 10(b) of Regulation 13 of Orissa
    Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution
    (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 applies to a request
0   for transfer of service connection but not to a fresh
    connection. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 casts
    a duty on every distributing licencee, in the case on hand,
    the appellant, to supply electricity on the application
    made by the owner or occupier of any premises within 1
    month after receipt of the application. No doubt, it should
E   be only after fulfilling the conditions such as installation
    of machinery, deposit of security etc. The other
    regulations, viz., Regulation Nos. 3 and 10 and various
    Forms would show the words "other dues including the
    security as may be payable" does not mean and were not
F   meant to convey that a new applicant for fresh
    connection shall pay arrears of electricity dues or other
    dues for the same premises "payable by the earlier
    consumer" as stated in Regulation 10. The term "other
    dues" refers to security and other charges payable for a
G   new connection in terms of the conditions of supply but
    not the arrears of electricity dues payable by earlier
    consumer who was in default. [Paras 12, 13, 14 and 15]
    [79-D-E; 80-B-F]

H        2. Regulation 13(10)(b) of Sub-clause 109(b) of the
 SPECIAL OFF., COMM., NORTH EASTERN ELEC. COMPANY OF ORISSA   73
          (NESCO) v. RAGHUNATH PAPER MILLS PVT. LID.

Electricity Supply Code is not applicable to respondent            A
No. 1. Respondent No. 1, after purchase of the said Unit
in an auction sale conducted by the Official Liquidator on
"as is where is" and "whatever there is" basis applied for
a fresh service connection for supply of energy. In other
words, respondent No. 1 has not applied for transfer of            B
service connection from the name of the erstwhile
company to its name. [Para 11) [78-H; 79-A-C]

    /sha Marbles vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr.
(1995) 2SCC 648: 1995 (1) SCR 847; Ahmedabad                       C
Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2004)
3 SCC 587: 2004 (3) SCR 23; Haryana State Electricity
Board vs. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauriand Ors. (2010) 9
sec 145: 2010 (10) SCR 217 - relied on.
   Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors. vs.             D
DVS Stee/sand Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC
210: 2008 (15) SCR 766- distinguished.
                     Case Law Reference:
    1995 (1) SCR 847           Relied on             Para 16       E
    2008 (15) SCR 766          Distinguished         Para 17
    2004 (3) SCR               Relied on             Para 18
    2010 (10) SCR 217         Relied on              Para 19
                                                                   F
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7899 of 2012.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 04.11.2010 of the
Orissa High Court, Cuttack in Writ Appeal No. 237 of 2010.
                                                                   G
    Suresh Chandra Tripathy for the Appellants.
   P.P. Rao, R.K. Gupta, S.K. Gupta, M.K. Singh, Shekhar
Kumar for the Respondents.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     H
    74       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012) 13 S.C.R.


A        P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

         2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
    order dated 04.11.2010 passed by the High Court of Orissa
    at Cuttack in Writ Appeal No. 237 of 2010 whereby the Division
    Bench while affirming the order dated 05.08.2010 passed by
8
    the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the
    appellants herein.

         3. Brief Facts:

c      a) In the year 2007, pursuant to the order of the Company
  Judge, High Court of Orissa, in Companies Act Case No. 25
  of 2005, the Official Liquidator, made an advertisement for sale
  of movable and immovable assets and properties of the
  Factory Unit of Mis Konark Paper & Industries Limited which
D was in liquidation on "as is where is and whatever there is"
  basis.

       b) The sale was confirmed in favour of respondent No.1 -
  Mis Raghunath Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., being the highest bidder,
  and the possession of the Unit was handed over on 28.03.2008.
E Since there was no power supply, respondent No.1 made an
  application to the Chief Executive Officer, North Eastern
  Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (in short " the
  NESCO") for restoration of the same. Respondent No. 1 also
  executed an agreement dated 27.03.2009 with the NESCO for
F supply of construction power in the Unit. There being no reply
  from the side of the NESCO, respondent No.1, vide letter dated
  26.08.2009, again requested for permanent supply of power.
  By letter dated 21.05.2010, the NESCO directed respondent
  No.1 to pay the arrears of electricity dues amounting to Rs.
G 79,02,262/- outstanding against the premises in question.
       c) Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed a petition being
  Writ Petition (C) No. 9807 of 2010 before the High Court of
  Orissa praying for quashing of the demand letter dated
  21.05.2010 issued by the NESCO with a direction to provide
H permanent supply of power.
SPECIAL OFF., COMM., NORTH EASTERN ELEC. COMPANY OF ORISSA        75
 (NESCO) v. RAGHUNATH PAPER MILLS PVT. LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

     d) Learned single Judge, by order dated 05.08.2010, after         A
considering various provisions of law governing the issue in
question allowed the petition and directed the NESCO to
provide electricity to the Unit of respondent No.1 within a period
of 7 days from the date of his judgment.
                                                                       B
     e) Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned single
Judge, the appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 237 of 2010 before
the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, by
order dated 04. 11.2010, finding no illegality in the order of the
learned single Judge, dismissed the appeal filed by the                C
appellants.

     f) Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellants have
preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition before
this Court.
                                                                       D
    4. Heard Mr. Suresh Chandra Tripathy, learned counsel for
the appellants and Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for
respondent No.1.

     5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether
a Company, which purchased the property of another Company             E
under liquidation through auction, is liable to pay the arrears of
electricity dues outstanding against the erstwhile Company.

     6. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 was the highest
bidder and the sale was confirmed in its favour and possession F
of the Unit was handed over on 28.03.2008 itself. It is further
seen that after getting the possession and after finding that
there is no supply power in the premises in question, respondent
No. 1 made an application for availing the same to the Chief
Executive Officer, NESCO. Since there was no reply on their G
part, respondent No. 1, by letter dated 26.08.2009, again
requested for permanent supply of electricity, for which, by letter
dated 21.05.2010, the NESCO directed respondent No. 1 to
pay the arrears of electricity dues amounting to Rs. 79,02,262/
- outstanding against the premises which was purchased in H
    76          SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 13 S.C.R.


A auction through Official Liquidator. Being aggrieved by the
  same, respondent No. 1 challenged the said demand order
  before the High Court. Learned single Judge, with reference
  to various yuidelines/rules applicable, quashed the demand
  order dated 21.05.2010 and the Division Bench also affirmed
B the same which necessitated filing of the above appeal.

        7. At the foremost, it is useful to refer the original order of
    demand dated 21.05.2010 issued by the NESCO which reads
    as under:-

C        "NORTH EASTERN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
                          OF ORISSA LTD.
          Corporate Office, Januganj, Balasore-756 019, Orissa
                 Regd. Office: Plot No.N-1/22, Nayapalli,
                     Bhubaneswar-751 012, Orissa
D
         No. FC/C0/238 12595(3)               Dated: 21.05.2010
         To                                      By Regd. Post

         The Director
E        M/s Raghunath Paper Mill (P) Ltd.
         At-Jharia, Rupsa
         Basta, Dist. Balasore

         Sub:- Payment of arrear electricity dues amounting to Rs.
F        79,02,262/- against the premises.
         Ref:    Your Letter No. Nil dated 13.01.2010
         Sir,
               With reference to the subject cited above, you are
G        requested to pay the arrear electricity dues amounting to
         Rs. 79,02,262/- outstanding against the premises to which
         you intend to avail power. On clearance of arrear electricity
         dues, necessary permission letter for providing power
         supply shall be issued in your favour.
H
 SPECIAL OFF., COMM., NORTH EASTERN ELEC. COMPANY OF ORISSA        77
  (NESCO) v. RAGHUNATH PAPER MILLS PVT. LTD. (P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

           Please arrange to pay the above arrear immediately A
     for necessary action regarding power connection to your
     unit.

                                                   Yours faithfully
                                                              Sd/-      B
                                     Special Officer (Commerce)

     CC to EE, BTED, Basta for information and necessary
     action.

     CC to SEEC, Balasore for information and necessary                 c
     action"

      8. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 has purchased
the said unit from the Official Liquidator in pursuance of the
advertisement for sale and the sale was confirmed on payment
                                                                   0
of the sale consideration and possession of the unit was
handed over on 28.03.2008. It is also relevant to mention here
that the Official Liquidator, pursuant to the order of the Company
Judge, High Court of Orissa in Companies Act Case No. 25
of 2005, made an advertisement for the sale of movable and
immovable assets and properties of the Factory Unit of M/s E
Konark Paper & Industries Ltd. covering the leasehold land,
buildings/sheds, plant and machinery, furniture and fixtures etc.,
which was in liquidation on "as is where is" and ''whatever there
is" basis. Inasmuch as respondent No. 1 satisfied all the
conditions, made full payment of sale consideration, the F
possession of the Unit was handed over by the Official
Liquidator to respondent No. 1 on 28.03.2008.

     9. After taking possession of the Unit on "as is where is"
and "whatever there is" basis, in order to establish a paper unit G
in the premises, respondent No. 1 made an application on
10.12.2008 to the NESCO for availing power of 100 KW at 33
KV. It is not in dispute that during the construction period of
Basta feeder line to the Unit, respondent No. 1 executed an
agreement with the NESCO dated 27.03.2009 for availing the H
     78          SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 13 S.C.R.


A    required load and deposited security amount of Rs. 1,65, 156/
     , however, even after completion of the work, the NESCO did
     not provide power supply to the Unit on the ground of arrears
     of electricity dues amounting to Rs. 79,02,262/- against the
     premises. According to the appellant-NESCO, without
·B   clearance of the outstanding dues for the electricity charges by
     the previous owner, respondent No. 1 is not entitled to power
     supply. On the other hand, it is the stand of respondent No. 1
     that inasmuch as the application is not for seeking transfer of
     power from a previous owner and the Unit was purchased on
C    "as is where is" and "whatever there is" basis after fulfilling all
     the formalities/conditions and in the absence of any privity of
     contract between respondent No. 1 and the NESCO, the
     demand for clearance of arrears of electricity dues is not
     justified.

D         10. Now, let us consider the relevant provisions of the
     Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution
     (Conditions of Supply), Code, 2004 (in short 'the Electricity
     Supply Code'). Sub-clause 10 of Regulation 13 of the Electricity
     Supply Code is as follows:-
E
          "(10) Transfer of service connection:-

           (a)    Subject to the Regulation 8, the transfer of service
                  connection shall be effected within 15 days from the
                  date of receipt of complete application.
F
           (b)    The service connection from the name of a person
                  to the name of another consumer shall not be
                  transferred unless the arrear charges pending
                  against the previous occupier are cleared.
G
          Provided that this shall not be applicable when the
          ownership of the premises is transferred under the
          provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act."

         11. It is the case of the appellant that as per the above
H    provision, viz., sub-clause 1O(b) of Regulation 13 of the
SPECIAL OFF., COMM., NORTH EASTERN ELEC. COMPANY OF ORISSA        79
 (NESCO) v. RAGMUNATH PAPER MILLS PVT. LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]


Electricity Supply Code, unless respondent No. 1 pays the A
arrears of electricity dues against the erstwhile company,
electricity supply cannot be restored to its Unit. We are of the
view that the reading of the above sub-clause makes it clear
that the said provision is not applicable to respondent No. 1.
We have already quoted that respondent No. 1, after purchase B
of the said Unit in an auction sale conducted by the Official
Liquidator on "as is where is" and "whatever there is" basis has
applied for a fresh service connection for supply of energy
(emphasis supplied). In other words, respondent No. 1 has not
applied for transfer of service connection from the name of the        c
erstwhile company to its name. To make it clear, respondent
No. 1 applied for a fresh connection for its Unit after purchasing
the same from the Official Liquidator. It is also not in dispute
that the arrears of electricity dues were levied against the
premises in question, on the other hand, it was levied against 0
the erstwhile company.

      12. From the above factual details in the case on hand and
in the light of sub-clause 1O(b) of Regulation 13 of the Electricity
Supply Code, we hold that the said clause applies to a request
for transfer of service connection but not to a fresh connection. E
The interpretation of this clause by learned single Judge as well
as by the Division Bench was correct being reasonable, just
and fair.

    13. Similarly, Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 speaks      F
about supply of electricity on request which is as under:-

    "43. Duty to supply on request.- (1) Save as otherwise
    provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on
    an application by the owner or occupier of any premises,
    give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month G
    after receipt of the application requiring such supply:

    xxx
    xxx                                                                H
    80       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012) 13 S.C.R.


A        Explanation:--For the purposes of this sub-section,
         "application" means the application complete in all
         respects in the appropriate form, as required by the
         distribution licensee, along with documents showing
         payment of necessary charges and other compliances:
B
         xxx

         xx x"

    Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 casts a duty on every
c   distributing licencee, in the case on hand, the appellant, to
    supply electricity on the application made by the owner or
    occupier of any premises within 1 month after receipt of the
    application. No doubt, it should be only after fulfilling the
    conditions such as installation of machinery, deposit of security
0   etc.

         14. We were also taken through the other regulations, viz.,
    Regulation Nos. 3 and 10 and various Forms which would show
    the words "other dues including the security as may be payable"
    does not mean and were not meant to convey that a new
E   applicant for fresh connection shall pay arrears of electricity
    dues or other dues for the same premises "payable by the
    earlier consumer" as stated in Regulation 10.

        15. As rightly pointed out by Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior
F   counsel for respondent No. 1, the absence of these words in
    para 3 conclusively shows that the term "other dues" refers to
    security and other charges payable for a new connection in
    terms of the conditions of supply but not the arrears of electricity
    dues payable by earlier consumer who was in default.
G      · 16. In lsha Marbles vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and
    Another (1995) 2 SCC 648, a three-Judge Bench of this Court
    had an occasion to consider a similar question, viz., whether
    the auction-purchaser is liable to meet the liability of old
    consumer of electricity to the premises which is purchased by
H
 SPECIAL OFF., COMM., NORTH EASTERN ELEC. COMPANY OF ORISSA        81
  (NESCO) v. RAGHUNATH PAPER MILLS PVT. LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

him in the auction sale from Bihar State Financial Corporation          A
under Section 29(1) of the State Financial Corporations Act,
1951. After considering relevant provisions of the Electricity Act
and the Regulations, this Court held as under:-
     "56. From the above it is clear that the High Court has
     chosen to construe Section 24 of the Electricity Act               B
     correctly. There is no charge over the property. Where that
     premises comes to be owned or occupied by the auction-
     purchaser, when such purchaser seeks supply of electric
     energy he cannot be called upon to clear the past arrears
     as a condition precedent to supply. What matters is the            C
     contract entered into by the erstwhile consumer with the
     Board. The Board cannot seek the enforcement of
     contractual liability against the third party. Of course, the
     bona fides of the sale may not be relevant.
                                                                        D
    61 ...... It is impossible to impose on the purchasers a
    liability which was not incurred by them.
    62. No doubt, from the tabulated statement above set out,
    the auction-purchasers came to purchase the property
    after disconnection but they cannot be "consumer or                 E
    occupier'' within the meaning of the above provisions till a
    contract is entered into.
    63. We are clearly of the opinion that there is great reason
    and justice in holding as above. Elec:ricity is public
    property. Law, in its majesty, benignly protects public             F
    property and behoves everyone to respect public property.
    Hence, the courts must be zealous in this ·regard. But, the
    law, as it stands, is inadequate to enforce the liability of
    the previous contracting party against the auction-
    purchaser who is a third party and is in no way connected           G
    with the previous owner/occupier. It may not be correct to
    state, if we hold as we have done above, it would permit
    dishonest consumers transferring their units from one hand
    to another, from time to time, infinitum without the payment
    of the dues to the extent of lakhs and lakhs of rupees and          H
    82       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012113 S.C.R.


A        each one of them can easily say that he is not liable for
         the liability of the predecessor in interest. .... "
       17. In Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. vs.
  DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 647=
  (2009) 1 sec 210, the question whether the supplier can
B recover electricity dues from the purchaser of a sub-divided plot
  was considered by this Court. The following conclusion is
  relevant:-
         "9. The supply of electricity by a distributor to a consumer
         is "sale of goods". The distributor as the supplier, and the
c .      owner/occupier of a premises 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
D
         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
E        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 v,endor of the premises in the
         absence of any contract to the contrary.
F
    Learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied on para 10 of
    the very same judgment which reads as under:-
         10. But the above legal position is not of any practical help
         to a purchaser of premises. When the purchaser of a
G        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
H        the supply of electricity made to the premises when it was
SPECIAL OFF., COMM., NORTH EASTERN ELEC. COMPANY OF ORISSA        83
 (NESCO) v. RAGHUNATH PAPER MILLS PVT. LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

    in the occupation of the previous owner/occupant, should           A
    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     B
    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      c
    with them."
If we apply the above principles as pointed out by Mr. Tripathy,
learned counsel for the appellant, undoubtedly, respondent No.
1-purchaser of the premises is liable to pay entire arrears or
outstanding of power dues. However, as pointed out by Mr. P.P.         D
Rao, learned senior counsel, respondent No. 1 is not a party
to the contract with the supplier, i.e., the NESCO. We have
already quoted the relevant clauses, particularly, sub-Clause
1O(b) of Regulation 13 of the Electricity Supply Code, which is
not applicable to respondent No. 1 herein. In other words, as          E
mentioned in the earlier paras, in the case on hand, respondent
No. 1 has not applied for transfer of service connection from
the name of the erstwhile company to its name but applied for
a fresh connection to its Unit after purchasing the same from
the Official Liquidator.                                               F
     18. It is also relevant to refer a decision of a three-Judge
Bench of this Court reported in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd.
vs. Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 587. This
Court, after finding that the cases are of fresh connection, in
para 3, held as under:-                                                G
    "3 ..... We are clearly of the opinion that in case of a fresh
    connection though the premises are the same, the auction-
    purchasers cannot be held liable to clear the arrears
    incurred by the previous owners in respect of power supply
                                                                       H
    84       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2012) 13 S.C.R.


A        to the premises in the absence of there being a specific
         statutory provision in that regard ..... "
       19. In a recent decision, i.e. in Haryana State Electricity
  Board vs. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri and Others, (2010)
  9 SCC 145, this Court, after referring to all the earlier decisions
B including /sha Marbles (supra) and Paschimanchal Vidyut
  Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra) etc., summarized the position in the
  following manner which is as under:-
         "12 ..... (i) Electricity arrears do not constitute a charge
         over the property. Therefore in general law, a transferee
c        of a premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the
         previous owner/occupier.
                (ii) Where the statutory rules or terms and conditions
         of supply which are statutory in character, authorise the
D        supplier of electricity to demand from the purchaser of a
         property claiming reconnection or fresh connection of
         electricity, the arrears due by the previous owner/occupier
         in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, the
         supplier can recover the arrears from a purchaser."
E      20. In the light of the above discussion, specific factual
  details regarding the position of respondent No. 1 which
  purchased the said premises under court auction sale from the
  Official Liquidator on "as is where is" and "whatever there is"
  basis and in the light of the regulations quoted above,
F particularly, sub-clause 10(b) of Regulation 13, we hold that the
  request was not for the transfer from the previous owner to the
  purchaser, on the other hand, it was a request for a fresh
  connection for the Unit of respondent No. 1 herein. We are in
  entire agreement with the decision arrived at by learned single
G Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
        21. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal,
    consequently, the same is dismissed.
    K.K.T.                                       Appeal dismissed.
H