Prior electricity dues attach only upon proven nexus and are recoverable proportionately.

Nine consumers had received electricity at premises No. 30/1 Kajipara Lane, Howrah, until CESC disconnected supply on 26 April 2024.

One former consumer, Sk. Rajob Ali, was the petitioner’s father.

The petitioner applied for a new connection, claiming to be the authorised occupier.

After inspection, CESC refused the connection unless outstanding dues were paid, asserting that the petitioner had a nexus with all nine former consumers.

The assessed claim under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, was ₹8,27,007.

The petitioner accepted a nexus with his father but argued that liability should be limited to the proportionate dues attributable to him.

Whether the petitioner’s liability for outstanding dues could extend to all nine former consumers, or only to the former consumer with whom a nexus was established under Regulation 13.9 of the 2010 Regulations.

Whether Regulation 4.6.4 of the 2013 Supply Code required payment of all outstanding dues before a new connection could be granted, notwithstanding Regulation 13.9’s nexus requirement.

Regulation 13.9 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standards of Performance of Licensees Relating to Consumer Services) Regulations, 2010 permits recovery of outstanding charges from an intending consumer where the licensee establishes that the applicant had a nexus with a previous consumer; liability is to be calculated on a pro-rated basis.

Regulation 4.6.4 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2013 provides that, following deemed termination of an agreement, a new connection at the same premises is subject to clearance of the deemed-terminated consumer’s outstanding dues and late-payment surcharge.

The Court treated the provisions as governing distinct matters and held that the non-obstante clause in Regulation 4.6.4 does not, by itself, dispense with Regulation 13.9’s requirement to establish nexus.

It relied on Arun Kumar Debnath v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, WPA No. 20816 of 2021 (28 March 2022), and the Division Bench decisions in West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Transmission & Distribution (India) Limited, FMA 1083 of 2022 (20 March 2023), and MAT 1883 of 2022 (20 November 2024).

It also referred to Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447, on construing a non-obstante clause within its proper scope.

CESC established a nexus between the petitioner and Sk. Rajob Ali, his father, but its assertion of nexus with the other eight former consumers was unsupported by evidence and amounted to guesswork.

Regulation 13.9 therefore made the petitioner liable only for the pro-rated outstanding charges attributable to the former consumer with whom the nexus was established.

The Court rejected CESC’s argument that Regulation 4.6.4 required payment of the entire assessed amount: that provision concerns deemed termination and the conditions for a new connection at the same premises, while Regulation 13.9 separately governs liability based on nexus.

The non-obstante wording did not eliminate the requirement to prove nexus for the other former consumers.

CESC was directed to complete the work within two weeks after the petitioner’s compliance.