State Commission has affirmed the order passed by the District Forum by observing as under :

“We have taken a view that no consumer can be compelled to pay the outstanding dues of electricity which he has not consumed at all.  If at all there was any agreement between the respondent and the landlord the due amount could have been recovered from the landlord as this agreement was an independent contract between the landlord and the respondent and not qua the premises.  The demand of outstanding bill was liable to be raised against the landlord if the actual consumer is not available and not against the tenant who had occupied the premises later on and applied for new connection.  On representation of the landlord, the appellant might have raised a demand upon the respondent.”

          No other point has been decided by the State Commission.  This finding runs contrary to the view taken by the Supreme Court of India in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. vs. DVS Steels  & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – (2009) 1 SCC 210 wherein it has been held as under :

“Held, when the purchaser of a premises approaches the distributor seeking a fresh electricity connection to its premises for supply of electricity, the distributor can stipulate the terms subject to which it would supply electricity, so long as such rules and regulations or the terms and conditions are not arbitrary and unreasonable — A stipulation by the distributor that the dues in regard to the electricity supplied to the premises should be cleared before electricity supply is restored or a new connection is given to a premises, cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary — First Respondent having paid the amount in pursuance of its undertaking as a condition for obtaining fresh connection, is estopped from claiming the amount back, except in accordance with the terms subject to which the payment was made — Amount deposited by first Respondent will have to be refunded if the third Respondent is ultimately found to be not liable or if third Respondent actually clears the dues.”

          Since the State Commission has not decided the other disputed facts, we set aside the order of the State Commission and remit the case to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration the entire set of pleadings and the evidence led by the parties with reference to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the above noted case. All contentions are left open.

          Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 6.1.2011.

          Since this is an old matter, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the matter expeditiously and preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of first appearance.