2018 Supreme(Cal) 930
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HARISH TANDON, J.
Aloke Kumar Bhattacharya - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal and others - Respondent
W.P. 15852(W) of 2017
Decided On : 19-06-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Syed Arif Ahmed, Mr. Anoy Bandyopadhyay.
For the Respondent: Mr. Naba Kumar Das.
The mandatory notice requirement under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 must be complied with before disconnecting the supply of electricity for non-payment of charges.
Headnote:
Electricity Act, 2003 - Consumer - Non-payment of Charges - Notice Requirement
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a consumer of electricity, faced disconnection of supply without receiving a bill or notice for non-payment of charges. The Licensee Company changed the consumer name without serving notice to the petitioner, leading to the disconnection of supply.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Licensee Company's action of disconnecting the supply without serving notice to the petitioner was illegal and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court directed the Licensee Company to restore the supply of electricity to the petitioner immediately without demanding any charges.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the Licensee Company's action in disconnecting the supply of electricity without serving notice to the petitioner for non-payment of charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which makes it mandatory for the Licensee Company to give notice in writing to a person neglecting to pay electricity charges before disconnecting the supply. The Court also emphasized the definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(15) of the Act to establish the petitioner's rights.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the Court directed the Licensee Company to restore the supply of electricity to the petitioner immediately without demanding any charges. No costs were awarded to either party.
JUDGMENT :
1. It is really unfortunate that a person who was all along paying the electric charges has faced disconnection without raising a bill upon him or the notice for non-payment of electricity charges. It is obligatory on the part of the Licensee Company to raise a bill and before proceeding to disconnect the supply of electricity must serve a notice upon the consumer.
2. In the instant case, the meter originally stood in the name of one Satyaranjan Kundu, who happened to be the landlord of the premises no. 22/1/1. Jogendra Basak Road, Kolkata – 700 036. It is also not in dispute that the said landlord died and an online application was made by the petitioner for allotting the said meter to him as he was enjoying electricity therefrom during the lifetime of the deceased landlord.
3. The Licensee Company processed the said application and changes the consumer name. Subsequently, the electric bill was raised upon the petitioner on monthly basis and it is not in dispute that the petitioner paid the same.
4. The dispute arose when the Licensee Company stopped raising the electricity bill upon the petitioner. An explanation is sought to be offered by the Licensee Company that previously the said meter stood in the name of Satyaranjan Kundu and, therefore, the same is required to be allotted to his son. It is further submitted that the said son approached the Licensee Company and thereafter the consumer name was changed and the bill was raised upon the recorded consumer.
5. Since the recorded consumer failed and neglected to pay the electric charges, which is to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- and odd, the Licensee Company has disconnected the supply of electricity through the said meter.
6. I am not impressed with such submission for the simple reason that the Licensee Company ought to have served a notice upon the petitioner being the recorded consumer before venturing to change the consumer name on the basis of an application filed by the son of the erstwhile recorded consumer. If the bill was never raised upon the petitioner and it appears that the same was raised upon the son of the erstwhile consumer, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer as he cannot be branded as a negligent and careless in making the payment of electricity charges.
7. The statutory authorities are not supposed to act as per their whims and convenience. They have to travel within the circumference of the statutory provisions and cannot overstep the same. Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 makes it imperative on the Licensee Company to give notice in writing by not less than fifteen clear days to a person who neglects to pay any charges of electricity before proceeding to disconnect the supply on the ground of default of payment of electricity charges. The word ‘consumer’ is defined under Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 to mean any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the government and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the government or such other person, as the case may be.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner satisfies the definition of a consumer and is a person who cannot be said to be negligent in payment of electric charges. Since no notice was ever served upon the petitioner but the action of the authorities in disconnecting the supply on alleged non-payment of electricity charges is illegal and contrary to the said mandatory provision, this Court, therefore, directs the Licensee Company to restore the supply of electricity to the petitioner immediately without demanding any charges on whatsoever account.
9. Since the restoration of supply is directed because of noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act, it would not operate as a fetter on the part of the Licensee Company in complying the provisions as indicate above before proceeding to disconnect the supply of electricity for non-payment of electric