Rajesh Shankar, J.

1. Both these writ petitions have been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to grant fresh electrical connections to the petitioners in their respective premises situated over Plot No. 292, Khata No. 62 [W.P.(C) No. 3650 of 2020] and Plot Nos. 288 & 289, appertaining to Khata Nos. 80 & 62 respectively Ward No. 06, Toklo Road, near Sai Mandir, Chakradharpur (West Singhbhum) [W.P.(C) No. 4435 of 2022]. Further prayer has been made for a declaration that the petitioners cannot be imposed the liability of Rs. 78,88,376/-towards unpaid electricity dues of the predecessor-in-title i.e. M/s Pawan Biscuit Company Private Limited in respect of the said properties purchased by them. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing communication dated 03.09.2020 [in W.P.(C) No. 3650 of 2020] and communication dated 13.05.2022 [in W.P.(C) No. 4435 of 2022] wherein it has been stated that new service connection cannot be provided to them as the said premises was in occupation of the erstwhile owner whose electrical line was disconnected due to non-payment of dues of Rs. 78,88,376/-. It has also been prayed for directing the respondents to pay penalty as envisaged under Section 43(3) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2003"], for their failure to supply electricity to the petitioners within one month of receipt of their applications for providing fresh electrical connections.

2. Mr. M. S. Mittal, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have purchased the premises in question on 03.02.2020 & 23.02.2021 respectively from one Mr. Pawan Kumar Agarwal and thereafter they applied for providing fresh electrical connections on 02.06.2020 & 31.01.2022 respectively. However, the said applications were rejected by the respondents vide separate communications made on 13.09.2020 & 13.05.2022 respectively stating that new electric service connection would not be provided in the premises in question as there was dues of Rs. 78,88,376/-against the erstwhile owner, namely, M/s Pawan Biscuit Company Private Limited due to which the electric connection of the said premises was disconnected.

3. It is further submitted that the said action of the respondents is absolutely contrary to the provisions of the Act, 2003 as well as the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations, 2015"]. Section 43 of the Act, 2003 casts a duty upon the distribution licensee to provide electrical connection to a consumer within one month from the date of application. The use of the word "shall" makes it evident that the said provision must be mandatorily followed. The consequence of failure to provide the electrical connection within the stipulated time has also been provided under Section 43(3) of the Act, 2003 which would suggest that Section 43 has been enacted for the benefit of the consumers and casts a mandatory duty on the distribution licensee. Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (JSERC), a statutory body formed under the Act, 2003, has framed the Regulations, 2015 which inter-alia provides the procedure for getting fresh electricity connection. The Clause 6.10(a) of the Regulations, 2015 stipulates that the distribution licensee shall inspect before providing electrical connection to see that there is no outstanding due in the applicant's name or on the premises for which the new connection is being applied for and during inspection, if it is found that the erstwhile consumer has left the premises making default in payment of electricity charges and the said premises has come in the legal possession of a new occupant through transfer, who has no nexus with the previous owner/occupant in any manner and applies for connection of the electrical line in the same disconnected premises, then the distribution licensee shall provide the electrical connection to the applicant without realization of the arrear/dues of the premises payable by the erstwhile consumer as well as the subsequent transferee of the premises shall not be held liable to pay/discharge the liability of the previous consumer for securing a fresh connection. The petitioners are the bonafide purchasers of the premises in question on payment of valuable consideration and they are not concerned with or related to the erstwhile owner in any manner. Thus, the petitioners ought to have been granted fresh electrical connections.

4. The respondents have based their claim as per Clause 5.3.3 of the Regulations, 2015, but have not dealt with the petitioners' claims which are covered under Clause 6.10(a) of the Regulations, 2015. Presently, the premises in question are in lawful possession of the petitioners through valid transfer deeds and they have no nexus with the erstwhile owner and therefore as per Clause 6.10(a) of the Regulations, 2015, the respondents are bound to provide fresh electrical connection to them despite existence of the dues of the erstwhile occupant. It is further submitted that the said action of the respondents is violative of Section 43 of the Act, 2003 as well as Clause 6.10(a) of the Regulations, 2015. In fact, the petitioners have purchased the aforesaid land from the erstwhile owner being part of total 6.5 Acres of land, which has been sold to 105 different persons pursuant thereto, 105 separate transfer deeds have been registered. However, in none of the plots, the fresh electricity connection has been provided after having applied by the bonafide purchasers and all those have been asked to pay the outstanding dues of the erstwhile owner for getting fresh electrical connections which is highly arbitrary.

5. On the contrary, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioners applied for electrical connections on 02.06.2020 & 31.01.2022 respectively by providing wrong information that there was no outstanding dues against the premises in question whereas the true fact is that the petitioners purchased the said premises in which the electricity connection was disconnected due to non-payment of the electricity dues. The petitioners have not submitted "No Dues Certificate" in view of Clause 5.3.3 of the Regulations, 2015 and as such fresh electricity connection cannot be provided to them. It was the petitioners' duty to verify the fact as to whether the previous owner had paid all electricity dues to the distribution licensee and had obtained "No Dues Certificate". The Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL) has filed certificate case against the erstwhile owner for realisation of the outstanding dues which is still pending.

6. To counter the argument of learned counsel for the respondents, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners submits that on perusal of Clause 5.3.3, it would be evident that the obligation to obtain "No Dues Certificate" is only directory and not mandatory. Though the said clause of the Regulations, 2015 provides that "No Dues Certificate" has to be obtained, yet it does not speak of any consequence for non-procurement of "No Dues Certificate". Clause 5.3.3 neither provides that a fresh electrical connection will be refused if such certificate is not obtained by the applicant nor it says that a fresh connection will be refused if the dues of erstwhile occupant is not cleared.

7. According to learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners, declaring Clause 5.3.3 of the Regulations, 2015 to be directory in nature and not mandatory is the correct way of interpretation so as to harmonize the said clause with Clause 6.10(a) of the Regulations, 2015 which is in fact mandatory in nature. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2019) 8 SCC 416 wherein it has been held that absence of any consequence for infraction of a procedural provision implies that such a provision must be interpreted as being directory and not mandatory. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners also puts reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (1991) 4 SCC 258 wherein it has been held that where Parliament confers a benefit, it must not be readily assumed that it intends to withdraw a benefit at the same time. Furthermore, the provisions of one Section cannot be used to defeat another.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioners are aggrieved with the communications made on behalf of the respondent-Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL) informing that their applications for grant of fresh electrical connections in respective premises have been rejected on the ground of existence of dues of erstwhile owner against the premises.

9. W.P.(C) No. 3650 of 2020 was earlier disposed of by this Court vide the judgment dated 21.12.2021 observing that the petitioner of the said case had an efficacious remedy of filing a complaint before the Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum (VUSNF) and therefore liberty was given to it to file a complaint before the VUSNF against refusal of fresh electrical connection by the respondent-JBVNL. The said petitioner preferred L.P.A No. 08 of 2022 against the judgment dated 21.12.2021 which was set aside by learned Division Bench observing as under:-

"20. Since, the learned Single Judge has not entered into the merit of the issue and the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious remedy and since we have held that the writ petition is maintainable, therefore, the matter is required to be heard by the learned Single Judge, on merit."

10. Thus, both these writ petitions have been taken up together to decide as to whether the petitioners are bound to pay the dues of the erstwhile consumer for obtaining fresh electrical connection in the premises in question.

11. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr. reported in (1995) 2 SCC 648 wherein an auction purchaser had sought fresh electrical connection which was refused by the Electricity Board on the ground of past arrear of the erstwhile owner. In the said case, Their Lordships have held as under:-

"63. We are clearly of the opinion that there is great reason and justice in holding as above. Electricity is public property. Law, in its majesty, benignly protects public 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 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 each one of them can easily say that he is not liable for the liability of the predecessor in interest. No doubt, dishonest consumers cannot be allowed to play truant with the public property but inadequacy of the law can hardly be a substitute for overzealousness.-------"

12. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners puts further reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri & Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 145 wherein it has been held as under:-

"12. The position therefore may be summarised thus:

(i) Electricity arrears do not constitute a charge over the property. Therefore in general law, a transferee 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 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."

13. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners also puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NESCO Vs. Raghunath Paper Mills (P) Ltd. reported in (2012) 13 SCC 479 wherein the respondent No. 1 purchased the property on "as-is-where-is" and "whatever-there-is" basis and applied for fresh electrical connection. NESCO did not provide electrical connection on the ground of arrears of electricity dues on the premises. The writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 was allowed by learned Single Judge directing NESCO to provide electrical connection to the respondent No. 1. Learned Division Bench also affirmed the decision of learned Single judge. Thereafter, NESCO preferred S.L.P before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein Their Lordships while dismissing the same, observed that the respondent No. 1 had not applied for transfer of service connection from the name of the erstwhile company to its name, rather had applied for a fresh electrical connection to its unit after purchasing the same from the Official Liquidator under auction-sale on "as-is-where-is" and "whatever-there-is" basis.

14. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited & Ors. Vs. Gopal Agarwal & Ors. reported in (2018) 12 SCC 644 wherein the auction-purchaser had applied for fresh electrical connection for its unit which was denied on the ground of non-payment of arrears by the past owner. In the said case, the High Court held that a power connection to an auction-purchaser cannot be withheld for the dues of the past owner by referring the judgments of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Inns (P) Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 587, Isha Marbles (Supra) and NESCO (Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the distribution company observing that the facts of the said case were similar to that of NESCO (Supra). It was further observed that the tender/sale notice mentioned that the property was being auctioned on "as-is-where-is" basis. The first respondent applied for a fresh connection and he was in no way connected to the past owner. He had also not undertaken to pay the past arrears of the previous owner.

15. Learned counsel for the respondents refers paragraphs 13 & 16 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Srigdhaa Beverages reported in (2020) 6 SCC 404 wherein it has been held as under:-

"13. The same view in case of a similar clause has been taken in [Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. DVS Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 210(2-Judge Bench)] It has been further observed that 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 of such rules and regulations so long as such rules and regulations or the terms and conditions are not arbitrary and unreasonable. A condition for clearance of dues cannot per se be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary.

16. We have gone into the aforesaid judgments as it was urged before us that there is some ambiguity on the aspect of liability of dues of the past owners who had obtained the connection. There have been some differences in facts but, in our view, there is a clear judicial thinking which emerges, which needs to be emphasised:

16.1. That 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.

16.2. Where, as in cases 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).

16.3. The debate over connection or reconnection would not exist in cases like the present one where both aspects are covered as per Clause 8.4 of the General Terms & Conditions of Supply."

16. According to learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners, in the said case Clause 8.4 of the General Terms & Conditions of Supply Agreement had provided that the seller of the property should clear all the dues of the company before selling such property. If the seller does not clear the dues, the company may refuse to supply electricity in the premises through already existing connection or refuse to provide a new connection in the premises till all dues of the company is cleared.

17. Learned counsel for the respondents puts further reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. Vs. DVS Steels and Alloys Private Limited & Ors. reported in (2009) 1 SCC 210 wherein it has been held as under:-

"14. We do not find anything unreasonable in a provision enabling the distributor/supplier to disconnect electricity supply if dues are not paid, or where the electricity supply has already been disconnected for non-payment, insist upon clearance of arrears before a fresh electricity connection is given to the premises. It is obviously the duty of the purchasers/occupants of premises to satisfy themselves that there are no electricity dues before purchasing/occupying a premises. They can also incorporate in the deed of sale or lease, appropriate clauses making the vendor/lessor responsible for clearing the electricity dues up to the date of sale/lease and for indemnity in the event they are made liable. Be that as it may."

18. On the other hand, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners refers paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment which reads thus:-

"Whether the supplier can recover the electricity dues from the purchaser of a sub-divided plot

10. The appellant submitted that if a consumer disposed of its premises, or any portion thereof, without clearing the dues in regard to the electricity supplied to its premises, any transferee seeking a fresh electricity connection or supply of electricity to the premises will have to clear the electricity dues of the previous occupant. The appellant referred to sub-clauses (g) and (h) of Clause 4.3 of the Electricity Supply Code, which is extracted below:

"4.3. (g) Where the property has been legally sub-divided, the outstanding dues for the consumption of energy on such premises, if any, shall be divided on pro rata basis.

(h) A new connection to such sub-divided premises shall be given only after the share of outstanding dues attributed to such sub-divided premises is duly paid by the applicant. Licensee shall not refuse connection to an applicant only on the ground that, dues on the other portion(s) of such premises have not been paid, nor shall the licensee demand record of last paid bills of other portion(s) from such applicants."

The appellant submitted that similar provisions existed in the relevant regulations of the Board even before the said Code came into force."

19. Thus, it is well settled that generally transferee cannot be held liable for the dues of the erstwhile owner/occupier of the premises, however, if there is a statutory rule for holding the subsequent purchaser liable for the dues of the erstwhile owner/occupier, then the distribution licensee may compel the subsequent purchaser to pay the dues before getting fresh electrical connection.

20. It appears that in the cases cited hereinabove by learned counsel for the respondents, there were specific stipulation for recovery of dues of erstwhile owner/occupier for providing new connection to the subsequent purchaser.

21. Now, the question before this Court is as to whether there is any statutory rule in the State of Jharkhand which mandates for recovery of electricity dues of erstwhile consumer from the subsequent purchaser of the premises.

22. Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (JSERC), a statutory body formed under the Act, 2003, has framed the Regulations, 2015 which inter-alia provides for the procedure of getting electrical connection.

23. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners puts much emphasis on Clause 6.10(a) of the Regulations, 2015 and submits that the said clause contemplates two situations; (i) there is outstanding dues in the applicant's name or (ii) there is outstanding dues on the premises for which the new connection is being applied for. In the present case, admittedly the dues is not in the name of the petitioners and so far as the dues on the premises in question is concerned, the petitioners have no nexus with the erstwhile owner. Thus, the respondents cannot compel the petitioners to pay dues of the erstwhile consumer for obtaining fresh electrical connection.

24. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon Clause 5.3.3 of the Regulations, 2015 and submits that it was the duty of the petitioners to verify the dues of the erstwhile owner as well as to obtain "No Dues Certificate" from the previous owner before purchasing the premises in question and if it failed to provide such certificate, they were required to obtain the same from the respondents. Moreover, in absence of "No Dues Certificate", the petitioners cannot claim for providing fresh electrical connection as there is outstanding dues of the erstwhile owner on the preemies.

25. To appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer Clauses 5.3.3 & 6.10(a) of the Regulations, 2015 which are reproduced as under:-

"5.3.3 Purchase of existing property: Where the applicant has purchased an existing property whose electricity connection has been disconnected, it shall be the applicant's duty to verify that the previous owner has paid all dues to the Distribution Licensee and obtained a "no-dues certificate" from him. In case such "no-dues certificate" has not been obtained by the previous owner before change in ownership of property, the new owner may approach the Distribution Licensee for such a certificate. The Distribution Licensee shall acknowledge receipt of such request and shall either intimate in writing the dues outstanding on the premises, if any, or issue a "no-dues certificate" within 1 month from date of receipt of such application. In case the Distribution Licensee does not intimate the outstanding dues or issue a "no-dues certificate" within this time, new connection to the premises shall not be denied on grounds of outstanding dues of the previous consumer. In such an event, the Distribution Licensee shall have to recover his dues from previous consumer as per provisions of law.

6.10 During the inspection, the Distribution Licensee shall:

(a) verify that there is no outstanding due in the applicant's name or for the premise for which the new connection is being applied for. If the applicant, in respect of an earlier agreement executed in his name or in the name of a firm or company with which he was associated either as a partner, director or managing director, has any arrears of electricity dues or other dues for the premises where the new connection is applied for and such dues are payable to the licensee, the requisition for supply may not be entertained by the licensee until the dues are paid in full. But if the erstwhile consumer defaulted payment of dues and left the premises for good and the concerned premises has come in legal possession of a new occupant through transfer or a decree/order of the court/authority and who has no nexus with the previous owner/occupant in any manner, applies for connection of the electrical line in the same disconnected premises, the distribution licensee shall provide electrical connection without realization of the arrear/dues of the premises payable by the erstwhile consumer, from the subsequent transferee of the premises and he shall not be held liable to pay/discharge the liability of the previous consumer for securing a fresh connection ......................................."

26. Thus, Clause 5.3.3 casts duty upon the purchaser of a property to ensure that the previous owner has got 'no-dues certificate' from the distribution licensee. It has further been provided that if 'no-dues certificate' has not been obtained by the previous owner then in that case, the purchaser may seek 'no-dues certificate' from the distribution licensee which will give 'no-dues certificate' to the purchaser or inform him about outstanding dues of the premises within one month. If no such intimation is given within such time, the new connection shall not be denied on the ground of outstanding dues of the previous consumer.

27. Thus, Clause 5.3.3 of the Regulations, 2015 on which much stress has been given by learned counsel for the respondents, does not provide the consequence of not getting 'no-dues certificate'. It also does not speak that the subsequent purchaser will be liable for the dues of previous owner whereas Clause 6.10(a) of the Regulations, 2015 which has been relied upon by learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners, specifically provides that new occupant of a premises shall not be held liable to pay/discharge the liability of the previous consumer for securing a fresh connection, if the concerned premises has come in legal possession of a new occupant through transfer which also includes transfer by sale or a decree/order of the Court/authority and who has no nexus with the previous owner/occupant in any manner.

28. In the case in hand, the specific claim of the petitioners is that the premises in question have been transferred to them by the erstwhile consumer by virtue of registered sale deeds and they have no nexus with the erstwhile consumer. The respondents have filed a supplementary counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 3650/2020 stating that erstwhile consumer i.e. M/s Pawan Biscuit Company Private Limited had four Directors, namely, Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Ramawtar Agarwal, Shraddhanand Agarwal and Puran Chand Agarwal. The said company was acquired by M/s Purbasha Foods Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 06.03.2021 and two Directors i.e. Pawan Kumar Agarwal and Ramawtar Agarwal were also the Directors of M/s Prubasha Foods Pvt. Ltd. The fact narrated in the supplementary counter affidavit does not suggest that the petitioner of the aforesaid case has any nexus either with the erstwhile consumer i.e. M/s Pawan Biscuit Company Pvt. Ltd. or with M/s Purbasha Foods Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the respondents have failed to show any nexus between the petitioners and the erstwhile consumer so as to make them liable to pay its outstanding electricity dues in terms with Clause 6.10(a) of the Regulations, 2015.

29. Both the petitioners and the respondents have relied upon a judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Om Prakash Garg Vs. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Ranchi (L.P.A No. 748 of 2019) wherein fresh electrical connection was denied to the appellant by JBVNL on the ground of outstanding electricity dues in the premises. In the said case, the property was purchased on 29.03.2011, during which the Electricity Supply Regulations, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations, 2005'] was in force. Clause 5.5 of the Regulations, 2005 did not speak about obtaining 'No Dues Certificate' from the distribution licensee. However, Clause 5.3.3 of the Regulations, 2015 which was enforced w.e.f. 07.09.2015, cast a duty upon the purchaser to verify that the previous owner had paid all the dues and obtained 'no-dues certificate' from the distribution licensee. Learned Division Bench held that the purchaser of a property prior to coming into force the Regulations, 2015 cannot be compelled to produce 'No Dues Certificate' which would amount to do an impossible task.

30. Learned Division Bench having analyzed Clause 5.5 of the Regulations, 2005 viz-a-viz Regulations 5.3.3 & 6.10 of the Regulations, 2015 held that Regulation 6.10 of the Regulations, 2015 is a pari materia to Regulation 5.5 of the Regulations, 2005 and conjoint reading of both the provisions would indicate that in order to deny new connection to the premises of the transferee, there should be a nexus of the applicant with the previous owner/occupant. If the purchaser has come in legal possession through transfer or purchase of the concerned property and has no nexus with the previous owner/occupant or is not connected with it in any manner, the distribution licensee is under obligation to provide electrical connection without realization of the arrears/dues of the premises payable by the erstwhile lessee from the new incumbent. It was further held that the respondent-company had resorted to statutory remedy available to it to recover the past dues of the premises and on that basis also, it could not have refused to grant fresh electricity connection to the applicant.

31. In the present case, admittedly, a certificate proceeding has already been initiated at the instance of the respondents against the erstwhile consumer for recovery of the outstanding dues against the premises in question which is still pending. Thus, the electrical connection to the petitioners cannot be refused on the ground of outstanding dues of the erstwhile owner/occupant as the respondents have failed to show any nexus between them.

32. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the impugned communication dated 03.09.2020 [in W.P.(C) No. 3650 of 2020] and communication dated 13.05.2022 [in W.P.(C) No. 4435 of 2022] are hereby quashed. The competent authority of the respondent-JBVNL is directed to provide electrical connections to the petitioners with respect to their respective premises within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if they fulfil the other legal requirements. The respondent-JBVNL will however be at liberty to pursue the certificate case pending for realisation of the outstanding dues from the erstwhile consumer.

33. The present writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed.