JUDGMENT :

1. The Court: The writ petition has been filed, challenging the imposition of Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS), alternatively referred to as Late Payment Surcharge (LPSC), on electricity charges due from the petitioners.

2. The relevant facts are as follows:

3. On August 13, 2015, the erstwhile Distribution Licensee Durgapur Projects Limited (DPL) raised a supplementary bill demanding a sum of Rs.19,67,99,980/- as arrears payable by the petitioners.

4. There were talks of instalments between the parties and the DPL revised the principal dues of Rs.18.61 crore and granted twelve monthly instalments. The petitioners, although not in terms of the instalments granted, ultimately cleared the entire dues of Rs.18.61 crore by June 18, 2021. However, the first default in payment of the supplementary bill took place on September 18, 2015.

5. On January 1, 2019, DPL got merged into the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL). On March 12, 2019, the WBSEDCL served a Notice demanding Rs.8.81 crore from the petitioners, being the balance dues in terms of the said supplementary bill of 2015.

6. The petitioners again asked for instalments, on which the respondents granted twelve monthly instalments in the same manner as the DPL had previously done. In the instalment bill dated March 27, 2019, it was clearly mentioned that no LPSC was included therein.

7. Due to non-payment of the DPS amounts, the WBSEDCL disconnected the electricity supply at the petitioners’ plant on June 8, 2021, upon which a writ petition, bearing WPO No.260 of 2021, was filed. On November 17, 2021, a Division Bench of this Court ultimately directed restoration of such electricity connection and referred the validity of imposition of DPS qua its validity and probability, to be decided by the Central Grievance Redressal Officer (CGRO).

8. The CGRO upheld the imposition of DPS by its Order dated May 12, 2022. The present writ petitioner has been filed against such imposition.

9. It is argued by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the claim of DPS by the respondents was barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as, “the 2003 Act”). It is argued that the supplementary bill was raised on August 13, 2015, the cut-off date with regard to which in terms of Section 56(2) ought to have been August 13, 2017. Till that date, no sum payable on account of DPS or principal was continuously shown as arrears by the DPL in its regular monthly bills. In fact, till September, 2019, no DPS was claimed from the petitioners at all on the basis of the supplementary bill dues, either by the DPL or, subsequently, by the WBSEDCL.

10. Learned senior counsel submits that the CGRO, in the impugned order, erroneously relied on Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and another Vs. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjullah, reported at (2020) 4 SCC 650. It is argued that the Supreme Court held in the said judgment that Section 56(2) did not preclude the licensee from claiming an additional or supplementary demand after expiry of the limitation period. However, in the present case, the supplementary bill was raised long back by the DPL, in the year 2015, whereas the claim has been made for DPS only in the month of September, 2019. It is argued, on the premise of Prem Cottex Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others, reported at 2021 SCC OnLine SC 870, that Section 56(2) of the 2003 Act not only debars disconnection but recovery of any sum, if not reflected as arrears for a period of more than two years in the regular bills after the first claim.

11. It is argued that the said position of law was reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Others Vs. Transmission & Distribution (India) Limited, reported at 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 667. Although the CGRO proceeded on the premise that the petitioners defaulted in making reg