Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
Amit Borkar, J.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Head Master, Anudanit Prathamik Ashram Shala & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 40 of 2017
Decided On : 19-07-2022
Electricity Bill - Interpretation of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 - [ELECTRICITY BILL] - [Interpretation of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003] - [Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act] - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which restricts the recovery of electricity charges for a period not more than two years preceding the date of the first demand of such charges. The court referred to the judgment of the Full Bench of the Court in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and held that the Distribution Licensee cannot demand charges for electricity consumption for more than two years preceding the date of the first demand of such charges. The court also considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rahamatullah Khan and Prem Cottex and concluded that they did not affect the ratio of the Full Bench's judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which restricted the period of an electricity bill to 24 months prior to its issuance. The dispute arose from the issuance and recovery of electricity bills for a charitable institution running a school.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Distribution Licensee was justified in restricting the petitioner's rights for the issuance of demand prior to 24 months of the date of the bill.
Issues: The interpretation of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the restriction on the recovery of electricity charges for a period not more than two years preceding the date of the first demand of such charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Court in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and held that the Distribution Licensee cannot demand charges for electricity consumption for more than two years preceding the date of the first demand of such charges.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.
3. By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Nagpur, restricting the period of a bill to 24 months prior to issuance of the bill.
4. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present petition are as under :
Respondent No.1 is a Charitable Institution running a School. On 30.07.2007, the electric connection was granted to respondent No.1's premises, and the electricity supply was also started on the same day. According to respondent No.1, the petitioner did not send any bill. Therefore, respondent No.1 on 27.06.2012 requested the employee of the petitioner to issue a bill. According to respondent No.1, on 19.12.2014, a provisional bill of Rs.6,74,093/- was issued without mentioning the period of the bill. It is contended that on 10.03.2015, the bill for the period from 01.10.2012 to 28.02.2015 was issued, which was Rs.6,69,970/-. According to respondent No.1, again on 09.09.2015, the petitioner issued a bill of Rs.9,40,070/-.
5. Respondent No.1 applied to respondent No.2 under Regulation 6.4 of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006. The petitioner filed a reply on 13.05.2016, submitting that on 20.11.2014, employees of the petitioner inspected respondent No.1's meter, and it was observed that the bills were not issued. According to them, therefore, the provisional bill was issued for a period starting from August 2012 to November 2014. It is stated that the matter was reported to Superior Authorities to take action against the erring officer. It is alleged that respondent No.1, towards part payment of the bill, paid Rs.1,00,000/- in December 2015 and Rs.2,48,000/- in March 2016.
6. The learned Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and respondent No.2 by impugned order directed the petitioner to revise the electricity bill for 30.07.2007 to 20.11.2014. Further, the petitioner shall recover the electricity bill for the period 21.11.2012 to 20.11.2014 for 24 months only without delayed payment charges and interest and adjust part payment made by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a present petition challenging the order dated 08.06.2016.
7. Mr. S. V. Purohit, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.2 could not have restricted the bill up to 2 years preceding the date of the first bill. According to him, charges for electricity consumed become due only after Distribution Licensee issues the demand bill. According to him, there was no dispute regarding the consumption of electricity. According to him, respondent No.2 has misread Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Rahamatullah Khan Alias Rahamjulla reported in (2020) 4 SCC 650 and in the case of Prem Cottex Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 870 to urge that the period of limitation of 2 years starts only after issuance of the bill and therefore, the respondent No.2 was not justified in restricting bill period prior to 24 months from the date of issuance of the bill.
8. Per contra, Mr. S. Y. Deopujari, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1, submitted that Section 56(2) of the said Act entitles Distribution Licensee to demand charges for electricity consumption for a period not more than two years preceding the date of the first demand of such charges. Therefore, according to him, the Distribution Licensee will have to raise demand by issuing a bill, and such bill may include an amount for a period preceding less than two years. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribut
The interpretation of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, restricts the recovery of electricity charges for a period not more than two years preceding the date of the first demand of such cha....
The court reaffirmed that under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, charges for electricity consumed can only be recovered for a period not exceeding two years preceding the first demand bill.
Supplementary bills can be raised for mistakes, but disconnection for non-payment after two years is prohibited under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
A licensee cannot exercise the power of electricity disconnection for the recovery of arrears that are more than two years old, unless such sums were continuously shown as recoverable in previous bil....
The right to recover electricity dues through civil suits is not barred by the two-year limitation for disconnection proceedings under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act.
The court established that an electricity company can issue revised bills for bona fide mistakes in billing, reinforcing the consumer's obligation to pay based on accurate meter readings.
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
