Electricity dues cannot be transferred between separate consumer accounts merely because the consumers are spouses.

Petitioner No. 1, Ajit Kumar Singh, and Petitioner No. 2, Aarti Singh, his wife, held separate domestic electricity connections in their respective names.

Outstanding dues of approximately ₹3,17,005 relating to two electricity accounts standing in Petitioner No. 2’s name were not paid, following which the respondents issued a notice dated 08.11.2022 stating that the dues would be transferred to Petitioner No. 1’s running electricity account.

The petitioners contended that the connections were distinct and that Petitioner No. 2 lived separately.

They further claimed that the premises had been sold to Rajesh Raushan in 2019 and vacated, and that post-sale dues could not be recovered from them.

The petitioners also pursued proceedings before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Whether the licensee could transfer the outstanding electricity dues of Petitioner No. 2 to the separate electricity account of Petitioner No. 1 merely because the petitioners were husband and wife, under Clause 10.15(a) of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code?

Whether the notice/order dated 08.11.2022 transferring Petitioner No. 2’s dues to Petitioner No. 1’s account was legally sustainable?

The Court applied Clause 10.15(a) of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, which empowers the electricity licensee to transfer outstanding dues from one running electricity account to another running account of the same defaulting consumer, subject to compliance with the prescribed procedure and due notice.

The provision does not authorize transfer of one consumer’s dues to the account of another independent consumer merely because the two consumers are related, including as spouses.

The Court found that the electricity connections of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 were separate and stood in their respective individual names.

Although Clause 10.15(a) permits transfer between accounts, its operation is confined to accounts belonging to the “same defaulting consumer”.

The Court interpreted that expression according to its ordinary meaning and held that it could not encompass two distinct consumers merely because they were husband and wife.

Consequently, Petitioner No. 1’s separate electricity account could not lawfully be burdened with Petitioner No. 2’s alleged outstanding dues.

The notice/order dated 08.11.2022 issued by the Electrical Assistant Engineer was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.