Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, K.N. Sakrappa, proprietor of Sri Maheshwari Industries, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated 26.12.2014 issued by the third respondent, Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), BESCOM, Challekere. The petitioner had purchased two properties (Sy.No.29/1B3 and Sy.No.29/1B) in an auction conducted by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) on 20.03.2006. The properties were originally owned by M/s. Hari Industries and M/s. Renuka Enterprises, who had availed loans from KSFC. Upon default, KSFC auctioned the properties, and the petitioner was the successful bidder. KSFC issued a sale communication on 20.03.2006 and later executed a sale deed. The petitioner applied for electricity supply from BESCOM for his agro industry. However, BESCOM issued a demand notice for arrears of electricity dues of the previous owners. The petitioner contended that he was not liable for the dues of the previous owners. The court, relying on Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, held that the respondent could have disconnected the supply for non-payment but cannot demand arrears from the auction purchaser without proper notice or opportunity. The court quashed the demand notice and directed BESCOM to consider the petitioner's application for electricity supply afresh, without reference to the arrears of the previous owners.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Liability of Auction Purchaser - Section 56 of Electricity Act, 2003 - The petitioner purchased the property in an auction conducted by KSFC. The respondent BESCOM issued a demand notice for arrears of electricity dues of the previous owners. The court held that the petitioner cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous owners without any notice or opportunity, and the demand notice was quashed. (Paras 1-5) B) Electricity Law - Disconnection of Supply - Section 56 of Electricity Act, 2003 - The court observed that the respondent could have disconnected the supply to the previous owners for non-payment, but cannot demand arrears from the auction purchaser without following due process. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who purchased the property in an auction conducted by KSFC, is liable to pay the electricity dues of the previous owners.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The demand notice dated 26.12.2014 (Annexure-A) is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application for electricity supply afresh, without reference to the arrears of the previous owners.
Law Points
- Electricity dues
- auction purchaser
- liability of successor
- Section 56 Electricity Act
- 2003
- demand notice
- natural justice
