Retrospective liability for old electricity dues cannot be imposed on a purchaser, and supply cannot be denied on that basis.

Section 49B of the Electricity (Supply) West Bengal Amendment Act, 1994 was held not to operate retrospectively to impose on a purchaser liability for the former consumer's pre-existing electricity dues, because the amendment created a new substantive burden and no clear retrospective intention was shown. The Court also held that alleged past dues could not be used as a condition precedent for a fresh or regularised electricity connection, since the recovery mechanism did not authorise denial of supply on that basis. The existing supply was directed to stand as a regularised connection in the purchaser's name, with payments already made to be adjusted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 49B of the Electricity (Supply) West Bengal Amendment Act, 1994 could be applied retrospectively to fasten liability for pre-existing electricity dues on the purchaser of the industrial unit; (ii) Whether such alleged outstanding dues could be insisted upon as a condition precedent for granting or regularising a new electricity connection.

Issue (i): Whether Section 49B of the Electricity (Supply) West Bengal Amendment Act, 1994 could be applied retrospectively to fasten liability for pre-existing electricity dues on the purchaser of the industrial unit.

Analysis: The amendment came into force after the writ petition and after the transaction by which the petitioner acquired the industrial unit. The provision created a new statutory liability in respect of dues of the former consumer and therefore operated to alter substantive rights. In the absence of clear legislative intention making it retrospective, a provision imposing a new burden cannot be construed to apply to past transactions. The liability sought to be imposed did not exist when the petitioner applied for supply and could not be attached to the completed purchase.

Conclusion: Section 49B was held not to have retrospective operation against the petitioner, and the petitioner was not liable for the prior dues of the former consumer.

Issue (ii): Whether such alleged outstanding dues could be insisted upon as a condition precedent for granting or regularising a new electricity connection.

Analysis: Although the amended provision enabled recovery of dues from the new owner or manager, that recovery mechanism did not authorise refusal of supply as a coercive condition unrelated to the statutory basis for a new connection. The Court applied the principle governing grant of supply and held that the dispute over alleged past dues could not defeat the petitioner's entitlement to a fresh connection. The existing supply was therefore directed to be treated as a regularised new connection in the petitioner's name, with payments already made to be adjusted accordingly.

Conclusion: The respondent could not insist on clearing the old dues as a precondition for supply, and the connection was directed to be regularised in the petitioner's name.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in substance: the petitioner was not made answerable for the predecessor's arrears, and the electricity supply already given was directed to stand as a regular new connection in the petitioner's name.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision creating a new liability will not be applied retrospectively to a completed transaction unless such intention is clearly expressed or necessarily implied, and a recovery provision for past dues cannot by itself be used to deny a new supply connection.

---