JUDGMENT : Rajesh Mazumdar, J. Heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing counsel, APDCL for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to APDCL) challenging the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2022 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman in Appeal Petition No. 1/2022. The second respondent in the writ petition is M/s H.K. Sagar Realtors LLP while the Brahmaputra TMT Bars Private limited and the State Bank of India are arrayed as proforma respondents. 3. It requires a mention that M/s H.K. Sagar Realtors LLP, the second respondent herein, has also filed a writ petition being WP(C) 1358/2023 arraying the APDCL as the contesting respondent, praying for reliefs which would depend upon the outcome of this petition. Though for the sake of convenience both the writ petitions were heard together, separate orders are proposed to be passed in the both the writ petitions respectively. Facts involved in this case: 4. M/s Brahmaputra TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd. had been sanctioned an electricity connection for 8000 KW of power load by the Government of Assam, Power (Electric) Mines & Mineral Department, in the year 2005. Subsequently, an agreement was executed between the then Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB) and M/s Brahmaputra TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd. on 18.07.2006 for supply of the 8000 K.W of power, stipulating that a metering system of 33 KV/570 and 33 KV/433 was to be installed in the premises of the consumer. A power transformer for 3450 KVA X 3 and 1000 KVA X 1 was also installed in the premises of the consumer for which a separate agreement was also executed. 5. M/s Brahmaputra TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as erstwhile consumer) was thereafter drawing power at a rate which exceeded 5000 KVA and further, while the normal supply voltage for 5000 KVA was 132 KV, the erstwhile consumer was drawing electricity at only 33 KV. The ASEB was succeeded by the APDCL and as such, APDCL made a request to the erstwhile consumer to make arrangements for conversion of his supply voltage from 33KV to 132 KV. 6. The consumer defaulted in the monthly payment of its electricity charges on account of which electricity connection to the premises was temporarily disconnected on 31.07.2013. The ASEB was succeeded by the APDCL and as such, APDCL made a request to the erstwhile consumer to make arrangements for conversion of his supply voltage from 33KV to 132 KV. 6. The consumer defaulted in the monthly payment of its electricity charges on account of which electricity connection to the premises was temporarily disconnected on 31.07.2013. On 01.02.2014, the APDCL wrote to the consumer to inform that the electricity connection was liable to be disconnected permanently on account of non-payment of electricity charges. Upon receipt of such letter, the consumer wrote back on 26.03.2014 requesting immediately that the date of permanent disconnection be extended as it was not in a position to pay the dues. Accordingly, after considering the case of the consumer, the authorities at APDCL deferred the “permanent” disconnection by 3 months on the condition that the erstwhile consumer would pay an amount of Rs. 90 lakhs per month during the period in order to pay off its outstanding dues. The same was communicated to the consumer on 11.04.2014. 7. Instead of making the payment, the consumer wrote to the APDCL on 30.06.2014 by enclosing a cheque of Rs. 1 crore with a request that a further period of 1 month be granted to it, with a promise that the balance amount would be paid off within a month. However, when the cheque was presented by APDCL for payment, the same was dishonored due to insufficient funds. This was communicated by the Area Manager, IRCA-II to the Chief Executive Officer, GEC-II on 07.07.2014. The consumer wrote to APDCL on 01.08.2014 requesting that the permanent disconnection be deferred upto 31.08.2014. The APDCL vide letter dated 07.08.2014 further extended the date of permanent disconnection upto 31.08.2014 on the condition that all the dues including the fixed charges and surcharge would have to be paid within 31.08.2014. 8. The APDCL, as a caveat, also issued a public notice dated 31.08.2014 intended to the prospective purchasers/lessees of the property, to which the electricity connection in issue was given, as well as to the statutory authorities to first satisfy themselves of the outstanding dues to the APDCL before taking over possession of such properties. 8. The APDCL, as a caveat, also issued a public notice dated 31.08.2014 intended to the prospective purchasers/lessees of the property, to which the electricity connection in issue was given, as well as to the statutory authorities to first satisfy themselves of the outstanding dues to the APDCL before taking over possession of such properties. It was further informed that in the event M/s Brahmaputra TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd. and its related companies do not clear the up-to-date dues of the APDCL, the liability towards the same would stand transferred to the new owners/possessors/lessees as per Section 3.6.3 and 3.6.4 of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matter Regulations, 2004 (as amended in 2007). The service connection of M/s Brahmaputra TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd. suffered “permanent” disconnection on 30.10.2014. 9. The State Bank of India issued a Possession Notice dated 14.05.2016, under the provision of Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 under the SARFAESI Act, whereby it took over possession of all immovable properties of M/s Brahmaputra TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd., including the property over which electricity charges remained unpaid. Thereafter, the State Bank of India vide letter dated 01.07.2016 requested the APDCL for granting a temporary electricity connection to M/s Brahmaputra TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd. as well as its related companies. The State Bank of India further undertook to make all necessary payments against the monthly bills of the APDCL. 10. The APDCL, on coming to know about the e-auction notice issued by the State Bank of India proposing to sell the assets of Ms/ Brahmaputra TMT Bars Private Limited, issued a public notice informing about the outstanding dues of the erstwhile consumer, which dues were likely to increase further and requested the bank to do the needful. 11. On 09.02.2017, the APDCL issued another public notice, intended to the prospective purchasers/lessees of the property, about the liability saddled on the erstwhile consumer and reiterated that such liability would stand transferred to new owners/possessors/lessee in terms of Section 3.6.3 and 3.6.4 of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matter Regulations, 2004 (as amended in 2007). 12. In July 2021, the properties of M/s Brahmaputra TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd. and its related companies were bought by the respondent no.2 in this writ petition. 12. In July 2021, the properties of M/s Brahmaputra TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd. and its related companies were bought by the respondent no.2 in this writ petition. On coming to know of the sale-purchase, the Area Manager, IRCA-II wrote to M/s H. K. Sagar Industrial Park on 09.09.2021 informing it of the up-to- date outstanding dues of the erstwhile owner of the property. In response, the respondent no.2 stated, by a letter dated 14.09.2021, that they were ready to pay an amount of Rs. 95,09,112 within three days from the date of issue of the letter. The respondent no. 2 however disputed the balance amount of Rs. 2,58,23,690/- and sought clarification regarding the same. 13. M/s H. K. Sagar Industrial Park thereafter preferred an appeal before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which was decided on 22.12.2021 against the appellants, holding M/s H. K. Sagar Industrial Park liable to pay the outstanding arrear amounts of M/s Brahmaputra TMT Bars Private Limited and its related companies before getting a fresh connection. 14. In the meantime, M/s HK Sagar Industrial Park was reorganized into a Limited Liability Partnership in the name and style of M/s HK Sagar Realtor LLP. The said M/s HK Sagar Realtor LLP filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 6209 of 2022 before this Court, praying for directions to the APDCL to provide a temporary electricity connection to the petitioners. Simultaneously, it also preferred an appeal registered as Appeal Petition No. 1 of 2022 before the Electricity Ombudsman against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. WP(C) No. 6209/2022 was later closed on withdrawal on 08.02.2025. 15. The Electricity Ombudsman allowed the appeal by judgment dated 15.11.2022. The Electricity Ombudsman came to a conclusion that the dues of the previous owner could not be recovered through the new owner. The learned Ombudsman also held that the transformation loss which was payable by M/s Brahmaputra TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd. could not be recovered from the Respondent No. 2 herein since such provision for recovery of transformation loss allegedly came into force only after 2017. The learned Ombudsman held that the levy of fixed charges on and from February 2014 to September 2014 was invalid. The learned Ombudsman held that the levy of fixed charges on and from February 2014 to September 2014 was invalid. Accordingly, the APDCL was directed to raise fresh bills upon M/s HK Sagar Realty LLP within 15 days for fixed charges up to January 2014 and upon receipt of the same, M/s HK Sagar Realty LLP was required to pay the same bills within a period of 7 days thereafter. The Ombudsman also directed that upon payment of the aforementioned dues, the APDCL could grant a fresh electricity connection to Messers HK Sagar Realty LLP. 16. This order of the Electricity Ombudsman is under challenge in the present writ petition. The writ petition has been admittedly initiated after the respondent no.2 had filed petition no 1/2022 praying for compliance of the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned Ombudsman. 17. Mr. K. P. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the APDCL / petitioners had initially submitted that four issues would arise for consideration for a fruitful adjudication of the grievance raised in the writ petition. 18. The first two issues were (i) whether the Electricity Ombudsman erred in holding that payment of outstanding electricity dues cannot be made condition precedent for granting electricity connection to a subsequent applicant over the same premises, and (ii) whether the Electricity Ombudsman had erred in holding that the respondent no.2 is not liable to pay the outstanding electricity charges payable by the erstwhile consumer. The learned counsel for the APDCL has contended that the findings of the Learned Ombudsman with regard to the said issues are against the settled position of law. Dr. Saraf, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has agreed with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the APDCL that the law is settled on the above two facets and the impugned judgment of the Learned Ombudsman was not correct to that extent. He has further submitted that the respondent no.2 would not be averse to bear the burden of lawful and legal demands of outstanding arrears made by the APDCL. However, the said submission was followed by a caveat that the respondent no 2 would not be liable to pay the demand made by the APDCL if such demands were unlawful or arbitrary. He submitted that only those demands which were lawful are required to be fulfilled prior to the connection being given by the licensee supplier. 19. However, the said submission was followed by a caveat that the respondent no 2 would not be liable to pay the demand made by the APDCL if such demands were unlawful or arbitrary. He submitted that only those demands which were lawful are required to be fulfilled prior to the connection being given by the licensee supplier. 19. On a consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties and upon a preliminary hearing of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the law laid down in K C Ninan -Versus- Kerala State Electricity Board and ors , reported in (2023) 14 SCC 431 , the respondent no.2 would be liable to pay the outstanding arrears of the previous occupier /owner of the premises which have now fallen into the hands of the respondent no.2. 20. In view of the stand taken on behalf of the respective parties, this Court is now required to adjudicate as to whether all the charges as levied and demanded by the APDCL, which are in dispute in the present proceedings, are liable to be paid by the respondent no 2 before a fresh electricity connection is afforded in the premises now owned and possessed by it. It has been submitted by both the parties that adjudication of the following issues would suffice for the purposes of the present petition, namely: 1. Whether the APDCL was authorized to levy fixed charges upon Brahmaputra TMT Bars Private Limited beyond the period of 15 days of issuance of the communication dated 01/02/2014, i.e. up to the date of permanent disconnection of the electricity connection on 24/09/2014? 2. Whether APDCL was authorized to levy a surcharge for transformation loss upon Brahmaputra TMT Bars Private Limited for supplying electricity to them at a voltage lower than what was actually contracted? 21. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no 2 had submitted that the respondent no 2 had already consented to pay outstanding dues arising for the electricity consumed by the erstwhile consumer and also the fixed charges levied for the period of 15 days from the date of temporary disconnection of electricity. The only live issues requiring consideration now are as listed in the preceding paragraph. 22. Opening his arguments, Mr. The only live issues requiring consideration now are as listed in the preceding paragraph. 22. Opening his arguments, Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the APDCL has submitted that the outstanding dues of the erstwhile consumer, which are now liable to be imposed on the respondent no.2 comprise of the following; a. Charges for electricity already consumed till the date of temporary disconnection, which are not in dispute. (b) Fixed charges levied from date of temporary disconnection to date of permanent disconnection, of which a part is in dispute. The respondent no. 2 has taken a stand that the fixed charges can be levied for a period of 15 days from the date of service of the notice for permanent disconnection and cannot be charged for the period from the 16th day onwards to the actual date of permanent disconnection. (c) LTMU charges (surcharge) from July 2006 to July 2013, which the respondent no. 2 has disputed in its entirety. He has submitted that there is no dispute with the settled position of law that the respondent no.2 would be liable to bear the charges for consumption of electricity by the erstwhile consumer upto the date of temporary disconnection and in fact, it is an admitted liability. 23. In view of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court holds that the respondent no.2 herein would be liable to pay the charges raised by the APDCL for consumption of electricity by the erstwhile consumer till the date of temporary disconnection of electricity to the premises involved in this litigation. This Court now proposes to address the charges levelled at clause (b) and clause (c) respectively in seriatum. 24. With regard to the demand for fixed charges raised in clause (b), the learned counsel for the APDCL has submitted that the APDCL had lawfully and correctly levied fixed charges from the date of temporary disconnection to the date of permanent disconnection. The learned counsel has submitted that there is no time period fixed within which the APDCL is required to inflict permanent disconnection upon a consumer. The learned counsel has argued that it is within the discretion of the supplier as to when the permanent disconnection is to be effected and therefore according to him, the consumer would remain responsible to pay fixed charges from the date of temporary disconnection upto the date on which the permanent disconnection is effected. 25. The learned counsel has argued that it is within the discretion of the supplier as to when the permanent disconnection is to be effected and therefore according to him, the consumer would remain responsible to pay fixed charges from the date of temporary disconnection upto the date on which the permanent disconnection is effected. 25. Mr Pathak, learned counsel has referred to the provisions of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and has submitted that the said provision was introduced to regulate the power of a licensee to disconnect the electricity supply to a person by making it obligatory to issue a notice of not less than 15 clear days in writing. It has been submitted that while it is mandatory to issue a notice prior to permanent disconnection, the disconnection of electricity itself has not been made mandatory by the provision of law. It has been submitted that there is nothing in the aforesaid provision which makes it obligatory for the licensee to compulsory disconnect the electricity and the disconnection has been left to the discretion of the licence. According to his submissions, the use of the word “may” in the said clause is indicative of the clear legislative intent. It has been submitted the legislative intent was to regulate the power of the licensee to disconnect the electricity supply of a consumer and to this end, it has been provided that the discretion conferred upon the licensee can only be exercised when the consumer has neglected to pay any charge for electricity or any other sum due from him even after lapse of notice of at least 15 days has been issued to him. He submits that therefore, the exercise of the option of effectuating a permanent disconnection is not only at the discretion of the licensee but also at the risk and peril of the defaulting consumer. He submits that therefore, the respondent no 2, who is saddled with the liabilities of the erstwhile consumer, is required to pay the fixed charges upto the date of permanent disconnection. 26. The second limb of argument forwarded by the learned counsel for the APDCL is that extension beyond the period of 15 days given in the notice had been granted at the request of the erstwhile consumer and there is no privity of contract of the APDCL with the respondent no.2. 26. The second limb of argument forwarded by the learned counsel for the APDCL is that extension beyond the period of 15 days given in the notice had been granted at the request of the erstwhile consumer and there is no privity of contract of the APDCL with the respondent no.2. He submits that therefore, when the erstwhile consumer did not contest or dispute the levy of fixed charges upto the date of permanent disconnection, the respondent no. 2 would not be entitled to raise a dispute on the same issue. 27. Answering the above, Dr. Saraf, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that there is no quarrel with regard to the fixed charges being levied on and from 31.7.2013 (date of temporary disconnection) upto the 15th day from 1.2.2014 (date of notice for permanent disconnection). He submits that the bills raised for fixed charges for the period exceeding 195 days from the date of temporary disconnection is arbitrary and would amount to undue gain to the APDCL. He submits that after effecting the temporary disconnection, the APDCL had admittedly raised bills for fixed charges for six months upto 31.1.2014 upon the erstwhile consumer and by letter dated 1.2.2014. the APDCL had directed for permanent disconnection to be done if the consumer did not clear the bill amount as on 17.2.2014. He submits that after service of the 15 days notice period, the permanent disconnection had to follow on 17.2.2014 and the lapse of the APDCL to permanently disconnect the supply till 24.9.2014 cannot be a reason to saddle the respondent no.2 with fixed charges upto 24.9.2014. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the though it is within the discretion of the APDCL to take a decision regarding the permanent disconnection of supply of electricity to a particular premise, it cannot stand to reason that such discretion would allow the APDCL not to effectuate permanent disconnection indefinitely with a view to allow the fixed charge to grow and multiply. Discretion, according to the learned senior counsel cannot be exercised arbitrarily and at will but has to be exercised reasonably and judiciously. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in the present case, there were clear intentions and directions for permanent disconnection to be carried out in case failure to clear bills by 17.2.2014. Discretion, according to the learned senior counsel cannot be exercised arbitrarily and at will but has to be exercised reasonably and judiciously. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in the present case, there were clear intentions and directions for permanent disconnection to be carried out in case failure to clear bills by 17.2.2014. The learned counsel had submitted that since the notice dated 1.2.2014 had not been revoked or kept in abeyance by orders of the competent authority, the APDCL was required to have effectuated the permanent disconnection on the expiry of the 15th day or at least on 17.2.2014. He has submitted that it would be unreasonable, leading to grave injustice, to burden the respondent no.2 with fiscal liabilities for the delay caused by the APDCL in effecting the permanent disconnection. 28. This court has considered the submissions made and has also perused the different annexures referred to by the learned counsel for the parties. In the present case, there is no dispute that the temporary disconnection was effected on 31.7.2013 and the notice for permanent disconnection was issued on 1.2.2014. The notice dated 1.2.2014 had directed that the permanent disconnection would be made if the dues were not paid within 17.2.2014. Documents annexed to the writ petition and which are not disputed by the respondent no.2 reveal that, at the request of the erstwhile consumer, the permanent disconnection had been deferred. The second notice for permanent disconnection appears to have been issued on 11.4.2014, deferring the disconnection till 30.6.2014. Thereafter, by different letters, requests were made by the erstwhile consumer to defer the permanent disconnection and by different letters, the requests were acceded to by the APDCL. The final letter from the erstwhile consumer prior to the permanent disconnection is dated 19.2014, an assurance was made that attempts were made for sourcing funds for payment of the bills raised and a request for extension of one month was made. The request was rejected on 15.9.2014 and the permanent disconnection was done on 24.9.2014. The load security and interest on it was calculated and adjusted against the outstanding amount. 29. There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that submission made on behalf of the respondent no.2 that the discretion vested in the APDCL cannot be exercised arbitrarily to delay the permanent disconnection on failure to pay the bills raised is correct. The load security and interest on it was calculated and adjusted against the outstanding amount. 29. There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that submission made on behalf of the respondent no.2 that the discretion vested in the APDCL cannot be exercised arbitrarily to delay the permanent disconnection on failure to pay the bills raised is correct. This Court cannot bring itself to agree to the submission made on behalf of the APDCL that the disconnection could be resorted to at the discretion of the APDCL at any point of time after the lapse of the 15 days notice, since such a leeway to the licensee would be amounting to allowing it to act arbitrarily and without uniformity. Having said so, in the present case when the admitted facts and sequence of events portrayed in the foregoing paragraphs are taken into account, it does not appear that the APDCL had deferred the permanent disconnection either on its whims and fancies or arbitrarily. The deferment, it is apparent, was done at the requests of the erstwhile consumer and such requests were either accompanied by part payment or by promises to pay the bills raised within time frames proposed by the consumer. The decision to defer the disconnection was not arbitrary or without reason, but was based on consideration of the requests made by the erstwhile consumer. During the period of deferment, on 30.6.2014, the erstwhile consumer had submitted a cheque as part payment of the outstanding bills without disputing the bills for fixed charges. The letter dated 7.8.2014 had also informed the erstwhile consumer that in addition to the outstanding dues, he would be required to pay the fixed charges for the month of August 2014 since permanent disconnection had been deferred to 31.8.2014 at his request. No document has been placed before this court that the levy of the fixed charges till 31.8.2024 had been disputed or objected by the erstwhile consumer. 30. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reference of the respondent no.2 that the APDCL had to mandatorily resort to permanent disconnection on the lapse of 15 days from the date of service of notice of permanent disconnection would not come to their aid in the given circumstances of the present case. 30. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reference of the respondent no.2 that the APDCL had to mandatorily resort to permanent disconnection on the lapse of 15 days from the date of service of notice of permanent disconnection would not come to their aid in the given circumstances of the present case. The permanent disconnection, as observed hereinabove, was deferred at the request of the erstwhile consumer, who did not protest the demand of fixed charges for the period of deferment. Therefore, it is held that the respondent no.2, who has stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile consumer would be liable to pay the fixed charges from the date of temporary disconnection up to the date of permanent disconnection of the electricity connection. 31. The second bone of contention between the parties to this litigation is the imposition of the LTMU charges by the petitioner APDCL for the period from July 2006 to July 2013. The agreement for supply of electricity between the erstwhile consumer and the APDCL was executed on 18.7.2006. As per the agreement, the service connection was shown as HT (High Tension) and the Motor or Meters were also shown as HT. The supply taken by the consumer as depicted in the agreement was at 33/570 and 33/433 volts at the point of supply for 8000 KW of power and the category of the consumer was shown to be extra large industry category in the schedule of tariff and terms and conditions of supply by ASEB. In the bills raised by the APDCL for the period from 01.4.2013 to 1.5.2013, the category of connection has been shown as HT II IND OPT 2 and the connected load has been shown as 11000 KW. 32. By a communication dated 22.2.2011, the APDCL had requested the consumer to make arrangements for conversion of his supply voltage from 33 KV to 132 KV. By another communication dated 13.06.2013, the consumer was informed that since it was drawing power at a voltage lower than what was specified under Clause 2.2 of the Assam Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2004, it was required to compensate for the said loss at 3% of the total energy consumption. The said compensation charge was to be levied in the monthly energy bill from the month of July 2013 onwards. The said compensation charge was to be levied in the monthly energy bill from the month of July 2013 onwards. The connection to the erstwhile supplier stood temporarily disconnected with effect from 31.7.2013. 33. While matters proceeded thereafter in the manner already recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, the APDCL came to receive the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ended 31.3.2016. In the report, amongst others, it was pointed out that by allowing the erstwhile consumer to draw electricity at a voltage lower than what was prescribed under the AERC Code, the APDCL had suffered transformation loss. The report had, for reasons recorded therein, considered the rate of 3%, allowed as rebate under the Electricity Tariff, to work out the energy loss (transformation and line loss) involved in the process of transformation of electricity from higher voltage to a lower voltage. Based on the said report, the APDCL had prepared a fresh statement whereby the electricity dues of the erstwhile consumer with regard to the transformation loss was computed at Rs 2,58,23,690.35/-. This was over and above the dues against monthly electricity supply which was calculated at Rs. 1,23,93,075/-. The dispute now is in connection with the transformation loss which was computed at Rs 2,58,23,690.35/- . 34. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the APDCL has submitted that as per Clause 2.2 of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2004, the voltage of supply to consumers was to be determined on the basis of the contract demand of the consumer. A consumer having a minimum contract demand of 5 kVA was to be supplied electricity by the distribution licensee at a voltage level of 132/220 KV. The Learned Counsel for the APDCL has submitted that the APDCL, as a temporary arrangement, had allowed the consumer to draw power at 33/132 KV level for 6 months. Even after expiry of the said six months, the supplier had continued to supply power to the consumer at 33/132 KV voltage level in violation of Regulation 2.2 of the AERC. By referring to the provisions of the Tariff Order for the Financial Year 2006-2007, the learned counsel has submitted that the consumers who had above 25 KVA load connected and were drawing power at LT were also covered under the “HT Group”. By referring to the provisions of the Tariff Order for the Financial Year 2006-2007, the learned counsel has submitted that the consumers who had above 25 KVA load connected and were drawing power at LT were also covered under the “HT Group”. He submitted that during the period of conversion from LT supply to HT supply, the consumer was required to pay the necessary compensatory charges ( 10% and 3% of the total energy consumption for LT line and DTR respectively). He has submitted that for supply of electricity at voltages higher than as applicable to the consumers as per regulation 2.2 of the AERC Electricity supply code and related matters Regulations 2004, a rebate @3% was applicable on energy consumption and therefore, the consideration of the same rate of 3% for calculating the loss for supplying electricity at a lower voltage than the demanded voltage cannot be faulted with. In the same breath, he submits that since a rebate of 3% would be applicable when the electricity is supplied at a higher voltage, a surcharge of 3% for consumption of electricity at a lower voltage was authorized and justified. The learned counsel has submitted that in fact, the AERC (Electricity Supply Code), 2017 and CEA Installation and Operation of Meters Regulations the following has been incorporated: 2.2.2 Supply at higher or lower voltage a) For supply at voltages higher than as applicable to the consumers as specified under clause 2.2.1, a rebate of 3% (or any other percentage as the Commission may decide) shall be applicable on energy consumption for each higher level of voltage. b) In case, supply is made to a consumer at voltage lower than specified above under clause 2.2.1, or metering is done on the L.T. side of the distribution transformer, then, for the purpose of billing a surcharge @ 3% (or any other percentage as the Commission may decide by an order) on the consumer‘s energy charges shall be added. 35. The learned counsel for the APDCL therefore submits that the respondent no.2 would remain liable to pay the aforesaid surcharge before a fresh connection can be considered on the premises involved in this litigation. 36. Countering the above contentions made on behalf of the APDCL, Dr. 35. The learned counsel for the APDCL therefore submits that the respondent no.2 would remain liable to pay the aforesaid surcharge before a fresh connection can be considered on the premises involved in this litigation. 36. Countering the above contentions made on behalf of the APDCL, Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the provisions of the Tariff order for Financial Year 2006-2007 would be applicable only in cases of conversion of Low Tension connections to High Tension Connections. He has submitted that the connection of the erstwhile consumer namely Brahmaputra TMT Bars had been a high Tension connection from the very inception and there was never any issue raised regarding conversion of the connection from LT to HT. The learned Senior counsel has furher submitted that though there were provisions for granting rebate for supply of electricity at higher voltage in the said Tariff order, there were no provisions for imposing surcharge for supplying electricity at lower voltage. 37. By referring to the provisions of the AERC (Supply Code) 2017, the learned counsel has argued that the provision of levying of LTMU Charge had been introduced in the AERC (Supply Code) 2017 with effect from 06.11.2017 and in the present case, the attempt of the APDCL to levy the charge with retrospective effect for the period from July 2006 to July 2013 cannot sustain scrutiny of law and deserves interference. 38. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the relevant provisions of the Regulations, Orders etc., this Court finds force in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent no. 2. This Court has noticed that the Tariff Order for the FY 2006- 2007 did not contain any provision for levying surcharge for consuming electricity at a lower voltage. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the APDCL had referred to the provisions where the consumer was required to pay compensatory charges during the period of conversion from LT supply to HT supply, on a pointed query by the Court, the position that the connection of the erstwhile consumer was a HT connection from the very initiation could not be disputed. Thus this Court has no option but to reject the reference to the provisions of the Tariff Order sought to be relied upon by the APDCL. 39. Thus this Court has no option but to reject the reference to the provisions of the Tariff Order sought to be relied upon by the APDCL. 39. Insofar as the contents of the letter dated 22.2.2011 and 13.6.2013 are concerned, the same apparently relate to requests by the APDCL to the erstwhile consumer to make arrangements for conversion of supply voltage from 33 KV to 132 KV. The said letters do not refer to conversion from LT supply to HT supply, and naturally so, since the connection of the erstwhile consumer was already HT. The specific case projected by the APDCL is that the surcharge/LTMU charge is being levied on the basis of Tariff Order for the financial year 2006-2007 and nothing has been pointed out before this Court to establish that such charge could be levied even when there was no case of conversion from LT supply to HT supply. Indeed the clause emphasized on behalf of the APDCL clearly applies to the period of “conversion from LT supply to HT supply. The very fact that the connection of the erstwhile consumer was HT from the very inception demolishes the assertion of the APDCL. 40. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court holds that the APDCL was not authorised to levy the LTMU charges as sought to be done for the period of supply of electricity to the erstwhile consumer for the period from July 2006 to July 2013 and therefore, the said liability, which is now sought to be burdened upon the respondent no.2 is set aside. 41. In conclusion, this Court holds that, in the event the respondent no.2 desires to take electricity connection from the APDCL, the respondent no.2 would be liable to pay the fixed charges, which were originally levied on the Brahmaputra TMT Bars, for the period from 31.7.2013 to 24.9.2014, but would not be liable to pay the LTMU charges originally levied on the Brahmaputra TMT Bars, for the period from July 2006 to July 2013. Consequently , the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned Electricity Ombudsman in Appeal Petition No.1/2022 is modified to the following extent: 1. The findings with regard to the first point of determination is interfered with and it is held that the electricity dues of the previous owner can be brought upon the new owner of the premises. 2. Consequently , the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned Electricity Ombudsman in Appeal Petition No.1/2022 is modified to the following extent: 1. The findings with regard to the first point of determination is interfered with and it is held that the electricity dues of the previous owner can be brought upon the new owner of the premises. 2. The judgment dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned CGRF was correctly held to be liable to interference, though for reasons different from what has been decided in this writ petition. 3. The LTMU charges raised by the APDCL for the period from July 2006 to July 2013 are without the sanction of law prevalent for the said period and are not recoverable from the respondent no 2. 4. The fixed charges levied on the erstwhile consumer for the period from 31.7.2013 to 24.9.2014 are recoverable from the respondent no.2, since (i) the fixed charges from 31.7.2013 to 11.2.2014 are not disputed by the respondent no.2 and (ii) the fixed charges for the remaining period till permanent disconnection have been levied as the deferment was at the instance and request of the then consumer, who had not raised any objection against such levy of fixed charges for the period of deferment. 5. The observations of the Learned Electricity Ombudsman, insofar as they state that the appellant therein, who is the respondent no.2 herein, may move for fresh connection after payment of the dues, shall be governed by the dues determined in this order. The observations stating that the APDCL may give fresh connection, are left without interference, save and except with the observation that the APDCL would be at liberty to ensure the compliance of such formalities and payments over and above the payment of the dues determined in this order as may be necessary for providing the fresh connection. 6. The dispute between the parties have been prevailing for the last more than 4 years and it is expected that the petitioners herein, who are the licensed suppliers/distributors of electricity would act with proper earnest to intimate the respondent no.2 regarding their liabilities determined on the basis of this order with the urgency that it deserves. 42. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs.