HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. MIS. HANUMAN RICE MILLS & Ors.

A upon the first respondent a demand notice dated 16.1.1995 towards electricity arrears due from the previous owner. 8 The first respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the appellant-Board from enforcing the .demand notice. The suit was dismissed. The appellate court upheld the order of dismissal. Thereafter, the appellant served a notice dated 2.3.1998 informing the first respondent that the electricity supply would be disconnected if the arrears due from the C previous owner were not paid. Thereafter the electricity supplied was disconnected on 9.3.1998. The first respondent filed a suit challenging the demand and disconnection of electricity supplied. The D said suit was dismissed by the ·trial court holding that the claim of the appellant was barred by limitation. Both the first respondentand the appellant filed appeals. The first appellate court while dismissing. the appeal filed by the appellant and allowing the appeal filed by the first E respondent held that-the first respondent could not be made liable for the dues of the previous owner, as there was no provision in the terms and conditions of sale that the electricity dues of the p,revious owner should be paid by the first. respondent as auction purchaser. The F appellant filed an appeal before the High Court. The High, Court dismissed the appeal holdii:-g that in view of the decision in lsha Marbles case, the liability of a consumer to pay charges for consumption of electricity cannot be fastened on ;a subsequent auction purchaser of the: G prop·erty. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the dismissal of the first suit filed by the first respondent for permanent injunction having attained finality, the second H HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. HANUMAN RICE MILLS 219 .. suit filed by the first respondent for a declaration that A demand· and disconnection were invalid, was barred by the principles of res judicata, and that the decision in *lsha Marbles relied on by the High Court was inapplicable to the facts of the case. · Dismissing the appeal, the Court 8 HELD: 1. The first suit by the first respondent was for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant Board from enforcing the demand notice dated 16.1.1995 in respect of the electricity consumption charges incurred C by the previous owner. By the second suit, the first respondent sought a declaration that the notice dated 9.3.1998 threatening disconnection. of electricity supply for non-payment of the arrears of the previous owner and the consequential disconnection dated 2.3;'1998, were D invalid and for consequential relief. The matter that was directly and substantially in issue in the second suit was completely different from the matter that was directly and substantially in issue in the first suit. The reliefs claimed were also different, as the first.suit was for. a permanent injunction and the second suit was for a declarat!_on and consequential relief. Therefore the se~ond suit was not barred by res judicata. [Para 5] [223-A~D]

#2. Electricity arrears do not constitute a charge over the property. Therefore, in general .law, a transferee of a premises cannot be made liab"le for the dues of the previous owner/occupier. Where the statutory rules or the terms. and conditions of supply which are statutory in character, authorize the supplier of electricity, to demand from the purchaser of a property claiming re-connection or fresh connection of ebctricity, 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. The appellant did not plead in its 220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 10 S.C.R. A defence that any statutory rule or terms and conditions of supply, authorized it to demand the dues of previous owner, from the first respondent. The decision in **Paramount Polymers shows that such an enabling term was introduced in the terms and conditions of electricity B supply in Haryana, only in the year 2001. The appellant did not demand the alleged arrears, when the first respondent approached the appellant for electricity connection in its own name for the same premises and obtained it in the year 1991. More than three years c thereafter, a demand was made by the appellant for the first time on 16.1.1995 alleging that there were electricity dues by the prevjous owner. In these circumstances, the claim relating to the previous owner could not be enforced against the first respondent. On facts, the D decision of the High Court does not call for interference. [Paras 9, 10, 11] [227-F-H; 228-A~E] Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran 'Nigam Ltd. v. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (1) sec 21 o - relied on.