F. I. REBELLO, J. Rule. Heard forthwith.

2. The petitioner had applied for electric connection from respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 commissioned meter No.2759592 on the petitioner's premises on 3rd January. 2003 for connected load of 125 HP (93.25 KW). The petitioner started using electricity since 30th August, 2003. Bills for the period from 30th August, 2003 to 30th October, 2003 and also subsequent bills till November, 2005 were sent to the petitioner indicating multiplying factor of one. Respondent No.1 around November, 2003 during energy audit observed that petitioner was billed by applying incorrect multiplying factor since beginning, the correct multiplying factor being 40. Supplementary bill was preferred in January, 2006 for Rs.12,33,328/ - .

3. The petitioner contested the said bill by filing a complaint before Consumer Redressal Forum on 06.03.2006. On 25.03.2006 as the petitioner had not paid electricity dues in terms of the bill, respondent No.1 issued notice of disconnection but withdrew the same. On 05.05.2006 the Consumer Redressal Forum passed an order against petitioner against which petitioner preferred an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman. The Electricity Ombudsman partly allowed the appeal and directed to recover amended dues under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as "Electricity Act"). Respondent No.1 on 24.07.2006 made demand on the petitioner in a sum of Rs.11,48,844/ - . On 24.07.2006 itself, a notice of disconnection was issued demanding arrears of Rs.13,17,141=13 paisa after some correspondence as no relief was given to the petitioner. The petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition (L) No.1866 of 2004 challenging the notice of disconnection. In the meantime on 16.08.2006 respondent No.1 amended earlier demand as the demand was not in conformity with the order of the Electricity Ombudsman. As petition became infructous, liberty was granted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file fresh petition. The petitioners once again by letter of 30th August, 2006 called respondent Nos.1 and 2 to withdraw their claim. The petitioner received a third notice of disconnection issued by respondent No.1 on 04.09.2006 and consequently the present petition.

4. At the hearing of this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted as under:

(i) Whether Electricity Ombudsman can pass order retrospectively covering a period from December, 2003 when the Electricity Ombudsman is established in the month of December, 2004.

(ii) Whether the Electricity Ombudsman has jurisdiction to pass impugned order dated 18th July, 2006 allowing back billing for 23 months by amending bills and the regulation system of MERC Regulations, 2006 or part of the disputes have been referred to MERC.

5. For the purpose of considering the controversy what is relevant are the provisions of Section 56 of the Electricity Act which we are gainfully reproducing for the purpose of deciding the issues that have been raised by the petitioner herein.

"56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment. –

(1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days' notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting of and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer:

Pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document