Electricity connection cannot be withheld over a vendor’s disputed arrears, subject to an undertaking.

The petitioner purchased the subject property from respondent No. 3 under a registered sale deed dated 18 December 2024.

Before the sale, respondent No. 3 had obtained an electricity connection for the property and was assessed back-billing charges by BESCOM. The appellate authority, MESCOM, partly allowed respondent No. 3’s appeal, waived the interest component, and directed payment of the initial claim; respondent No. 3 paid the amount required under that order.

BESCOM’s challenge to the appellate order remained pending in W.P. No. 19981 of 2023. When the petitioner sought an electricity connection, BESCOM demanded ₹4,09,48,425 and required surrender of the existing connection. The petitioner challenged that demand and sought a connection.

The petitioner submitted that the vendor had undertaken to pay any amount ultimately determined in the pending proceedings; BESCOM proposed that the petitioner also undertake to pay if the vendor failed to do so.

1. Whether BESCOM could demand payment of ₹4,09,48,425 from the petitioner and refuse to process its electricity-connection request while its challenge to the appellate authority’s order remained pending.

2. Whether the petitioner could be directed to provide an undertaking to protect BESCOM’s interests pending resolution of the vendor’s case.

The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

It treated the appellate authority’s order as operative unless and until set aside: because respondent No. 3 had complied with that order, no further amount was then due from the vendor.

The Court also applied a balancing approach, permitting the petitioner’s connection request to proceed subject to an undertaking that it would pay any amount ultimately found due if the vendor failed to pay.

Section 127(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, was mentioned only in the procedural history concerning the vendor’s appeal and payment.

The Court reasoned that BESCOM could not rely on its pending challenge to treat the amount claimed as presently payable, since the appellate order had not been set aside and the vendor had paid as directed.

Accordingly, BESCOM had no present justification to demand the amount from the petitioner or leave its connection request unconsidered.

However, to protect BESCOM if its challenge succeeded and the vendor did not pay, the Court required the petitioner to undertake to pay the amount ultimately determined.