Electricity: Electricity dues – Liability of auction purchaser to pay electricity dues of previous owner of purchased unit – In the instant case, auction notice clearly stated that the unit was being sold on ‘as is where is, what is there is and without any recourse’ basis and that the Authorised Officer carrying out the auction absolved himself of the liability for any charge, lien, encumbrance, property tax dues and electricity dues etc. – Auction purchaser applied to appellant-Electricity Department for sanction of connection for running the unit which was refused on the ground that there were previous electricity dues – The Electricity Department asserted its right to recover the dues from the new purchaser based on clause 5.9.6 and 8.4 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply of Distribution and Retail Supply Licensees in AP – Held: Since in the auction notice, existence of electricity dues was specifically mentioned as a liability of new purchaser and that the sale was on ‘as is where is, what is there is and without any recourse’ basis, the Electricity Department was well within its right to demand dues of the last owner from the respondent purchaser. Electricity: Electricity dues partake the character of statutory dues under Electricity Act, 2003 r/w General Terms and Conditions of Supply – Therefore, they cannot be waived in view of provisions of the Act itself more specifically s.56 of Electricity Act, 2003 (in pari materia with s.24 of Electricity Act, 1910) and cannot partake the character of dues of purely contractual nature.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Electricity dues, where they are statutory in character under the Electricity Act and as per the terms and conditions of supply cannot be waived in view of the provisions of the Act itself more specifically section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in pari materia with section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 and cannot partake the character of dues of purely contractual nature. [Para 15A][303-F]
1.2 Where, as in case of the E-auction notice in question, the existence of electricity dues, whether quantified or not, has been specifically mentioned as a liability of the purchaser and the sale is on “AS IS WHERE IS, WHATEVER THERE IS AND WITHOUT RECOURSE BASIS”, there can be no doubt that the liability to pay electricity dues exists on the respondent (purchaser). [Para 15B][303-G; 304-A-B]
Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 470 : [1998] 2 SCR 620 –
followed.
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Paramount Polymers (P) Ltd. (2006) 13 SCC 101 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 635; Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v. DVS Steels and Alloys Private Limited & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 210 : [2008] 15 SCR 766 – relied on Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr. (1995) 2 SCC 648 : [1995] 1 SCR 847; Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 145 : [2010] 10 SCR 217 –
distinguished.
Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (through its CMD) & Ors. v. Gopal Agarwal & Ors. (2018) 12 SCC 644; Special Officer, Commerce, North Eastern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa (NESCO) v. Raghunath Paper Mills Private Limited & Anr. (2012) 13 SCC 479 : [2012] 13 SCR 71 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.