The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the relevant regulations in determining the time-barred nature of the claim for outstanding amounts and the consequential threat of disconnection.

JUDGMENT

1. The Distribution Licensee (CESC Limited) has preferred the instant writ petition, challenging an order of the Ombudsman. The respondent no.2 had outstanding dues in respect of an electricity meter at premises no. 27A, Hossain Shah Road, Kolkata. As a result, the CESC Limited disconnected the said supply for non-payment of outstanding dues on February 6, 2018.

2. The respondent no.2, upon applying soon thereafter for a new electricity connection at a different premises in the area at 27A/H/2, Hossain Shah Road, was given a new electricity connection by the CESC Limited on March 19, 2018. The respondent no. 2 regularly cleared all electricity bills for such connection.

3. Subsequently, on March 2, 2021, the CESC Limited sent a letter to respondent no.2, asking the respondent no.2 to clear his pending dues in respect of the previous disconnected supply.

4. Upon the respondent no.2 not making such payment, the CESC Limited issued a notice of disconnection of the second connection, appended with the electricity bill for the month of April, 2021.

5. Respondent no.2 made a representation on May 3, 2021 against the said disconnection notice and bill before the concerned Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO), seeking rectification of the electricity bill.

6. Due to pendency of the matter before the GRO, the respondent no.2 filed a writ petition bearing W.P.A. No.11126 of 2021, seeking an order restraining the CESC Limited/petitioner from disconnecting the supply of electricity of the respondent no.2 at the new premises.

7. On July 20, 2021, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction on the GRO to dispose of the representation of respondent no.2 within a fortnight from the dated of receipt of a copy of the order.

8. The GRO, vide order dated August 16, 2021, directed the respondent no.2 to clear the outstanding dues of the petitioner/CESC Limited by six monthly instalments in order to continue with the existing supply, restraining the CESC Limited from disconnecting supply to the respondent no.2 in the meantime.

9. The respondent no.2 challenged the said order of the GRO by filing Representation No. C-47SB/2021 before the Ombudsman, West Bengal (respondent no.1) appointed under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, 'the 2003 Act').

10. The Ombudsman passed a Draft Settlement Order (DSO), upon hearing the parties, on June 9, 2022. The CESC Limited raised an objection to it by a written submission on July 12, 2022, seeking modification of the said DSO.

11. However, the Ombudsman passed final order on September 15, 2022, inter alia, observing that the CESC Limited was not entitled to raise the demand for arrears of its dues as the claim was barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of the 2003 Act.

12. Challenging the said order, the CESC Limited has preferred the instant writ petition.

13. Learned Counsel appearing for the CESC Limited argues that Section 56(1) of the 2003 Act envisages three modes of recovery of outstanding dues - a money suit for recovery of the amount, disconnection of the supply and discontinuance of the supply until the outstanding dues, with expenses incurred by the Licensee in cutting-off and reconnecting the supply, are paid.

14. It is argued that Section 56(2) of the 2003 Act is not applicable in the present case. It is submitted that the second mode contemplated in sub-section (2) of Section 56 was already resorted to on February 06, 2018, by disconnecting the previous supply.

15. However, in view of such disconnection, no further bills could be raised in respect thereof and there was no further scope of showing the outstanding sum continuously in the electricity bills for the said disconnected meter as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner/CESC Limited alleges that when the new connection was given at Premises No.27A/H/2 on March 19, 2018, the respondent no.2 suppressed about the previous outstanding dues standing in his name in respect