Back
G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
Balmukund Concast Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Bihar State Electricity Board – Respondent
G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.—The petitioner has filed the present writ application for the following reliefs:—
(i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the monthly energy bills dated 5.8.2008, 5.9.2008 & 6.10.2008 for the month of July, August and September 2008 issued to the petitioner company and to rectify and prepare the said monthly energy bills in terms of Clause-11.4(b) of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code- 2007 (here in after referred to as the 'Code') read with Clause 7 of the Chapter Terms and Conditions of HT Tariff of the Tariff order issued on 29.11.2006 by Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission, applicable w.e.f. 1.11.2006 on the consumers of Bihar State Electricity Board, (hereinafter Referred to as the 'Board') treating the meter of the Petitioner factory as defective meter.
(ii) To further issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the bill dated 9.7.2008 raised by the Board in terms of Clause 11.4 Read with Annexure-7 of the Code, wherein the Board without ascertaining the period under Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act 2003, have wrongly raised the bill considering the numbe
The main legal point established is the application of the multiplying factor in electricity billing and the interpretation of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Appellate Authority erred in reducing the periods of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity, as defined by the provisions of Sec.1....
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.
The Electricity Board must refer disputes regarding defective meters to the Electrical Inspector before raising supplementary bills, as mandated by S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
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.
The court held that a licensee can correct a bona fide mistake in billing even after the two-year limitation period for recovery of dues under Section 56(2) of The Electricity Act, 2003.
The error in applying the multiplying factor did not absolve the petitioner from paying the charges, and the respondents were entitled to raise the supplementary demand.
The obligation to pay electricity charges arises upon issuance of a bill, which constitutes the first due, and the limitation period under Section 56(2) does not prevent supplementary demands.
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
