Back
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA DESAI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A. SAYED
M/s. Rototex Polyester & Another
Versus
Administrator, Administration of Dadra & Nagar Havli (U.T.) Electricity Department, Silvassa & Others
Decided on : 20-08-2009
WRIT PETITION NO.7015 OF 2008
While dealing with this submission Single Judge referred to Delhi High Court’s judgment in H.D. Shourie v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1987 Del 219 where the Delhi High Court was considering the expression "due" appearing in Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Delhi High Court observed that if the word "due" is to mean consumption of electricity, it would mean that electricity charges would become due and payable the moment electricity is consumed and if charges in respect thereof are not paid then even without a bill being issued, a notice of disconnection would be liable to be issued under Section 24, which could not have been the intention of the Legislature. The Delhi High Court observed that the words "due in this context would mean due and payable after a valid bill has been sent to the consumer. Single Judge followed this view and set aside the Ombudsman’s order which had taken a contrary view. Court is in respectful agreement with Single Judge. In this case, the demand notice with revised bill dated 3.10.2007 was, according to the petitioners, served on them on 9.11.2007. Therefore, the revised bill amount first became due on 9.11.2007. Hence, Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 would not come in the way of the respondent from recovering the said amount u nder the revised bills. The impugned order dated 12.9.2008, warrants no interference.
Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.
1. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing and disposal forthwith.
2. Petitioner 1 is a proprietary concern, having its registered office at 6/8, Old Hanuman Lane, 1st Cross Lane, 1st floor, Room No.19, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Petitioner 2 is the proprietor of petitioner 1. Respondent 1 is the Administrator of Administration of Dadra & Nagar Havli (U.T.), Electricity Department, Silvassa. Respondent 1 is the appellate authority under the Electricity Act, 2003. Respondent 2 is the Executive Engineer of the Electricity Department, Dadra & Nagar Haveli (U.T.). Respondents 3 to 5 are the Deputy Engineers and Junior Engineer respectively of Respondent 1. Respondent 6 is the Union of India.
3. Petitioner 1 is in the business, inter alia, of manufacturing and supplying of various types of polyesters and yarns. Petitioner 1 has various types of machineries and equipments in the factory premises. By demand notice dated 3/10/2007, respondent 2 informed the petitioners that the CT ratio of their metering installation was changed from 25/5 to 50/5 vide office report dated 11/7/2003. The demand notice further stated that in this report, it has been mentioned that the multiplication factor has changed from “500” to “1000” with effect from 11/7/2003. The demand notice further stated that by oversight, the department has issued bills for the period July, 2003 to July, 2007 with “500” as multiplication factor for reading of “1000” till July, 2007 and, hence, all the bills for this period are revised with “1000” as multiplication factor. The detailed statement of revised bill was enclosed to the demand notice. The total amount of revised bill was Rs.2,60,17,001/-. The petitioners were requested to pay the bill amount of the revised bills for the period July, 2003 to July, 2007 within 15 days of receipt of the said demand notice.
4. By letter dated 12/11/2007, the petitioners gave reply to the said demand notice through their advocate. The petitioners received energy bill dated 11/1/2008. The said bill was inclusive of arrears of revised bill for the period from July, 2003 to July, 2007. The total amount of the said bills comes to Rs.2,77,34,867.43. The said bill was issued by the office of respondent 2.
5. Being aggrieved by the said bill, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.4406 of 2008 challenging the said revised bill. On 9/6/2008, the Division Bench of this court, (Bilal Nazki & S.S. Shinde, JJ.) disposed of the said writ petition observing that the bill issued by the respondents can be challenged by way of an appeal. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to file an appeal in accordance with law. It appears that pursuant to this order, the petitioners preferred an appeal being Electricity Appeal No.11 of 2008 before respondent 1. By a reasoned order dated 12/9/2008, respondent 1 dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this writ petition.
6. We have heard, at some length, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that assuming that the said amount is due from the petitioners, the said amount first time became due in July, 2003, but the claim for July, 2003 to July, 2007 is raised only on 3/10/2007 and, therefore, under Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the claim raised by the respondents is time barred. He submitted that therefore the revised bill is liable to be quashed and set aside.
8. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to the judgments of learned Single Judge of this court in U.A. Thadani & Anr. v. B.E.S.T. Undertaking & Anr., 2000 Vol. 102(2) Bom.L.R. 502 and in Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation v. Yatish Sharma & Ors., 2007(3) Bom.C.R. 659 and submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the said judgments. He submitted that inasmuch as there is wrong billing due to clerical mista
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
