# Amir Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 838 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-09-16 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 31054 of 2025 - **Bench:** Arindam Sinha, Avnish Saxena - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amir-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53779 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on an 'as-iswhere-is' basis, holding a sale certificate declaring the property to be free from encumbrances, can be denied a new electricity connection by the distribution licensee on the ground of outstanding electricity dues of the previous owner/borrower? HEADNOTE Electricity supply - Application for fresh electricity connection - Outstanding electricity dues attached to the premises - Clause 4.3(f)(i) & (viii) of U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 - Duty of purchaser to find out outstanding electricity dues - Clearance of dues mandatory for grant of connection - Property sold by authorized officer under S. 13 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Sale on "as-is-where-is" basis - Sale certificate stating property free from all encumbrances - Electricity arrears attach to the property by operation of law - Principle of 'buyer beware' applies - Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, (2023) 14 SCC 431 - Refusal to grant connection without clearance of dues justified - No ground for interference under Art. 226 - Writ petition disposed of. (Paras 3-8) HELD Petitioner was an auction-purchaser of a property sold on an "as-is-where-is" basis, to whom attached the requirement of the phrase "buyer beware. Petitioner, having bid for such a property in an auction conducted by or on behalf of the bank, ought to have made enquiry regarding the charge of unpaid electricity dues attaching to the property by operation of law; In view of clause 4.3(f)(i) and (viii) of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005, it was the duty of the seller and of the purchaser to find out the outstanding electricity dues up to the date of sale, and both seller and purchaser would be either/or, jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding electricity dues or obtain a no-dues certificate. Contention of the petitioner that the authorized officer, his vendor, had not consumed electricity was not accepted by the Court. Distribution licensee was held to be justified in refusing fresh electricity connection unless the auction-purchaser paid the dues of the previous owner. (Paras 3-8) (E-5) CASE LAW CITED K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, (2023) 14 SCC 431 List of Acts Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Electricity Act, 2003 List of Keywords Auction-purchaser - SARFAESI Act - As-iswhere-is basis - Buyer beware - Outstanding electricity dues - Previous owner dues - Electricity Supply Code, 2005 - Clause 4.3(f)(i) and (viii) - Fresh electricity connection - Clearance of dues - Auction conducted by bank - Refusal of connection - Writ jurisdiction. CASE ARISING FROM Refusal by electricity distribution company to grant fresh electricity connection on account of outstanding dues attached to the premises. Appearances for Parties Advs For Petitioner: Meraj Ahmad Khan Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Pranjal Mehrotra ## Text 838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order." *** 26. Finally, upon examination of the above mentioned judgments, it is axiomatic that any petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus, has to approach the Court with clean hands and to produce before the Court all material facts that are relevant for adjudication of the said matter. The principle of uberrima fides -abundant good faith - as stated in The King v. The General Commissioners for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the District of Kensington reported in [1917] 1 K.B. 486 applies in the present case. A petitioner who does not bring on record the relevant true facts before the Court, does not deserve to get any relief from the Court." 5. Upon going through the application filed and perusing the order passed by DRT, it is clear that the writ petitioner had suppressed material facts. The entire process of obtaining the impugned order was an abuse of the process of the Court as the petitioner had not come with clean hands and failed to follow the principle of uberrima fides - utmost good faith. 6. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the order passed on August 28, 2025 is required to be recalled in its entirety. Furthermore, we have been given to understand by counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents that they have been removed from their residence without any notice whatsoever and are now on the streets. 7. In light of the above order passed, the order dated August 28, 2025 is hereby recalled. We direct the IIFL Home Finance Limited and the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad to immediately restore the possession of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 and their family members. 8. The recall application is allowed. 9. Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to send a copy of the order passed in Court today, forthwith to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad for taking necessary steps in this matter. (Order on Writ Petition) 9. List this matter on October 9, 2025. 10. On the next date, the petitioner is directed to file an affidavit of compliance of the order passed in Court today. ---------- (2025) 9 ILRA 838 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.09.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. Writ C No. 31054 of 2025 Amir Ahmad ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Meraj Ahmad Khan 9 All. Amir Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 839 Counsel for the Respondents: C S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether an auction-purchaser of a secured immovable property sold by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on an 'as-iswhere-is' basis, holding a sale certificate declaring the property to be free from encumbrances, can be denied a new electricity connection by the distribution licensee on the ground of outstanding electricity dues of the previous owner/borrower? HEADNOTE Electricity supply - Application for fresh electricity connection - Outstanding electricity dues attached to the premises - Clause 4.3(f)(i) & (viii) of U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 - Duty of purchaser to find out outstanding electricity dues - Clearance of dues mandatory for grant of connection - Property sold by authorized officer under S. 13 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Sale on "as-is-where-is" basis - Sale certificate stating property free from all encumbrances - Electricity arrears attach to the property by operation of law - Principle of 'buyer beware' applies - Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, (2023) 14 SCC 431 - Refusal to grant connection without clearance of dues justified - No ground for interference under Art. 226 - Writ petition disposed of. (Paras 3-8) HELD Petitioner was an auction-purchaser of a property sold on an "as-is-where-is" basis, to whom attached the requirement of the phrase "buyer beware. Petitioner, having bid for such a property in an auction conducted by or on behalf of the bank, ought to have made enquiry regarding the charge of unpaid electricity dues attaching to the property by operation of law; In view of clause 4.3(f)(i) and (viii) of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005, it was the duty of the seller and of the purchaser to find out the outstanding electricity dues up to the date of sale, and both seller and purchaser would be either/or, jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding electricity dues or obtain a no-dues certificate. Contention of the petitioner that the authorized officer, his vendor, had not consumed electricity was not accepted by the Court. Distribution licensee was held to be justified in refusing fresh electricity connection unless the auction-purchaser paid the dues of the previous owner. (Paras 3-8) (E-5) CASE LAW CITED K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, (2023) 14 SCC 431 List of Acts Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Electricity Act, 2003 List of Keywords Auction-purchaser - SARFAESI Act - As-iswhere-is basis - Buyer beware - Outstanding electricity dues - Previous owner dues - Electricity Supply Code, 2005 - Clause 4.3(f)(i) and (viii) - Fresh electricity connection - Clearance of dues - Auction conducted by bank - Refusal of connection - Writ jurisdiction. CASE ARISING FROM Refusal by electricity distribution company to grant fresh electricity connection on account of outstanding dues attached to the premises. Appearances for Parties Advs For Petitioner: Meraj Ahmad Khan Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Pranjal Mehrotra (Delivered by Hon'ble Arindam Sinha, J.) 1. Mr. Meraj Ahmad Khan, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Pranjal Mehrotra, learned advocate, for respondent nos. 2 to 4 (the supply company). Mr. Raj Mohan Upadhyay, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. 2. The writ petition was moved on 9th September, 2025. Paragraph 1 from order made that day is reproduced below. 840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES "1. Mr. Meraj Ahmad Khan, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client purchased the property from the authorized officer exercising power under section 13 in Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. He points out, inter-alia, his client holds sale certificate dated 24th April, 2024 saying that the property was made free from all encumbrances and sold to his client. He applied for electric connection but it is not being given on the supply company holding out, there are arrear dues attached to the premises." 3. Today, Mr. Mehrotra relies on clause 4.3 (f) (i) and (viii) in chapter 4 of U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005, reproduced below. "(i) It will be the duty of the seller and of the purchaser to find out the outstanding electricity dues up to the date of sale, and further that both seller and purchaser will be either/or, jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding electricity dues/ obtain No dues certificate. ......... (viii) The application shall be processed by licensee on clearing of dues." (emphasis supplied) 4. Mr. Mehrotra also relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in K.C. Ninan Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board reported in (2023) 14 SCC 431, inter alia, paragraph 117 reproduced below. "117. In light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the electricity utilities can create a charge by framing subordinate legislation or statutory conditions of supply enabling recovery of electricity arrears from a subsequent transferee. Such a condition is rooted in the importance of protecting electricity which is a public good. Public utilities invest huge amounts of capital and infrastructure in providing electricity supply. The failure or inability to recover outstanding electricity dues of the premises would negatively impact the functioning of such public utilities and licensees. In the larger public interest, conditions are incorporated in subordinate legislation whereby the Electric Utilities can recoup electricity arrears. Recoupment of electricity arrears is necessary to provide funding and investment in laying down new infrastructure and maintaining the existing infrastructure. In the absence of such a provision, the Electric Utilities would be left without any recourse and would be compelled to grant a fresh electricity connection, even when huge arrears of electricity are outstanding. Besides impacting on the financial health of the Utilities, this would impact the wider body of consumers." He submits, there is no ground for interference. The writ petition be dismissed. 5. In reply Mr. Khan submits, K.C. Ninan (supra) does not apply to his client's case, who is bonafide purchaser for value from the authorized officer of the bank. His client's vendor did not consume any electricity. As such, there cannot be any claim of the supply company, to result in a charge on the property by operation of law. The supply company has not been able to show any bill raised on the authorized officer for electricity consumed by occupation of the property, sold to his client. In any event, he reiterates, the 9 All. Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Collector Sitapur & Ors. 841 property was sold to his client free from all encumbrances known to his vendor. 6. There is substance in contention of the supply company made upon reliance on clause 4.3 (f) (i) and (viii). Petitioner is auction-purchaser of a property dealt with under law as being secured property of a borrower, who had defaulted on repayment. As such the property was sold on "as- iswhere-is" basis. To petitioner attaches the requirement of the phrase 'buyer beware'. Petitioner having bid for such a property, in auction conducted by or on behalf of the bank, ought to have made such enquiry regarding charge of unpaid electricity dues attaching to the property, by operation of law. His contention that the authorized officer, his vendor, had not consumed electricity must be seen as cannot be sustained by reason of declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in K.C. Ninan (supra) in fact situation covering petitioner. Paragraph 1 from the judgment is reproduced below. "1. The nineteen cases in this batch of appeals follow a similar pattern of facts. The supply of electricity was discontinued due to the failure of the previous owners to pay the dues for consumption of electricity on the premises. The previous owners had borrowed money or raised loans on the security of their premises. In some cases, the erstwhile owner went into liquidation. The premises were sold in auction-sales generally on an "as-is-where-is" basis. The new owners, who purchased the properties in auction, applied for new electricity connections for the premises to which electricity had been disconnected for failure to pay the dues. The Electric Utilities refused to provide an electricity connection unless the auction-purchaser paid the dues of the previous owner. This refusal was derived from powers conferred under subordinate legislations, notifications, Electricity Supply Codes or State Regulations. The denial of electricity supply resulted in the institution of petitions under Article 226 before the High Court, leading to the judgments which are in appeal." (emphasis supplied) 7. Petitioner is required under law to comply with, inter alia, aforesaid provision in clause 4.3, to obtain electricity connection in the property he has purchased. 8. The writ petition is disposed of. ---------- (2025) 9 ILRA 841 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 16.09.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. Writ C No. 1002280 of 2021 Smt. Maya Devi ...Petitioner Versus Collector Sitapur & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: P.N. Dwivedi, Rama Pati Shukla, Shravan Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: C S.C., G.P. Pandey, R.N. Gupta ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether cancellation of lease under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 could be sustained when passed without serving mandatory notice and beyond the statutory limitation period?