Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the demand notice dated 21.06.2017 marked at Annexure-L to the writ petition. That the petitioner is an Agro based industry carrying on its activities at Chicksugur Industrial Growth Center, Raichur and for the power supply, the respondents have installed meter bearing No.HTR-153 with sanctioned load of 120 KVA. That on the written request of the consumer i.e., the petitioner herein, the load capacity was enhanced to 200 KVA. The enhancement was done with effect from 23.11.2009 and in this regard a contract also came to be executed by the petitioner which is produced at Annexure R1 with the statement of objections. From the said date of installation, the petitioner was classified as a HT-2(A) consumer and as per the terms of the contract, he was required to pay meter rates on a constant of MC-200.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 21.01.2017, the petitioner was shocked to receive the demand notice claiming a sum of Rs.22,28,665/- and upon enquiry the petitioner was informed by the officer of the respondents’ organisation that on account of miscalculation by the meter reader, the meter constant was calculated at a constant of MC 150 instead of the constant at MC 200 and that the mistake had commenced in August, 2012 and subsisted till December, 2016 and hence the present demand in view of the short claim on account of an account of an inadvertent act.

4. It is further submitted that by another demand notice dated 17.03.2017 the said officer once again issued a demand notice claiming back billing charges, this time around the sum claimed was Rs.23,54,231/- which is produced at Annexure-C to the writ petition. Thereafter, by letter dated 18.03.2017 the respondents have clarified the demand dated 17.03.2017 and admitted that the mistake was on account of omission and hence neither penalty nor interest is levied.

5. It is submitted that thereafter the respondents issued present demand notice dated 31.03.2017 calling upon the petitioner to file his objections if he so desires to the provisional demand. In response to the same, the petitioner has also filed detailed objections and one of the prime ground of the defence was that the demand is more than two years old from the date of the amount first becoming due and hence in terms of the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, the respondent/Corporation is not entitled to demand payment of the same and is barred by limitation.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that thereafter the respondents by communication dated 08.05.2017 intimated the petitioner that in the event of demand is not settled within seven days, the power connection to the petitioner premises would be disconnected. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide objections dated 31.03.2017 he has set out his objections in detail with regard to the demand on account of short claim to his installation and that in response to the same, the 3rd respondent had once again reiterated the demand dated 21.06.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

7. It is contended that the demand is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, which reads as follows:

“Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years form the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”

8. It is further contended that the de