JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The petitioners are partners of a firm which runs a business by the name of M/s. New Senco Bakery.

2. Previously, the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, one Sri Ashim Kumar Sen, since deceased, used to run the said business. Subsequently, on his demise, the petitioners have been running the same. Sometime in February, 2020, the WBSEDCL (respondent no.1) held an inspection at the petitioners' premises and alleged that there was unauthorized use of electricity by way of extension of load to commercial premises (lodge). An assessment was made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short, “the 2003 Act”) and the electricity supply was disconnected on such allegation. A criminal proceeding was also initiated. Ultimately, the petitioners deposited the assessed amount and the criminal offences were compounded.

3. Thereafter, upon clearance of all the due payments, the petitioners sought for restoration of the electricity connection.

4. Despite such payments, the WBSEDCL subsequently refused to give such connection on a new ground that there was a further due of Rs.16,86,023.98p in respect of a different Consumer ID bearing no.941611900 in respect of the same premises and insisted that the petitioners were required to pay such further amount prior to the reconnection being given. It is noteworthy that the petitioners' Consumer ID is different, being No. 163042012.

5. Challenging such demand and seeking restoration of their connection, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition.

6. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners argues that the petitioners are entitled to restoration of the electricity supply within 48 hours of the deposit in terms of the Third Proviso to sub-section (1-A) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act upon deposit of the entire amount assessed.

7. Hence, such reconnection cannot be resisted by the licensee after such payment is made.

8. It is further argued that the alleged outstanding dues claimed by the WBSEDCL at this juncture pertain to a default allegedly made in an adjacent premises by a different entity and neither the petitioners nor their Bakery was a party to the default. Such alleged default took place prior to the promulgation of the 2003 Act; hence, obviously prior to the 2012 Regulations of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (WBERC). Thus, there was no applicability of Section 56 of the 2003 Act. A prayer for recovery of the amount after so long would in any event be palpably time-barred. It is submitted that even after the commencement of the 2003 Act, Section 56(2) of the said Act debars the claim, since, up to the disconnection of the petitioners' supply in respect of M/s. New Senco Bakery in the year 2020, no claim was made for the default allegedly committed in the period 1997-98. Even after the promulgation of the Act, the dues were never shown, let alone continuously, in any of the bills raised for the petitioners' connection. Hence, it is argued that the claim made by the WBSEDCL is de hors the law.

9. Learned counsel for the WBSEDCL contends that under Section 56(2), no sum shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when it became first due. However, it is argued that Clause 4.6.4 of the West Bengal Electricity Supply Code, 2012, provides that notwithstanding anything contained contrary elsewhere in the Regulations, where deemed termination of agreement has taken place, then on the basis of application of any consumer, new service connection can only be provided in the same premises if the outstanding dues against the deemed terminated consumer is cleared along with Late Payment Surcharge.

10. It is argued that the previous connection in respect of the earlier Consumer ID, which was in the same joint premises, was in default and stood disconnected. Consequentially, under Clause 4.6.1 of the 2012 Supply Code, the agreement between the consumer and the licensee stood automatically terminate