JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J :

1. The writ petition has been filed primarily seeking restoration of electricity connection of the petitioners. The said connection was severed on August 1, 2011 for non-payment of electricity charges. It is relevant to mention that the writ petitioners are consumers of the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC)-respondent no.1 in the State of Jharkhand. By operation of the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (JERC) Regulations, the power purchase agreement between the parties automatically expired 180 days after such disconnection.

2. The DVC filed a money suit bearing Money Suit No.29 of 2014, claiming Rs.1,01,46,469/-as dues for May, 2010 to July, 2011.

3. Prior to the filing of the suit, the DVC had filed a winding up proceeding against the petitioner under the Companies Act, 1956 claiming the same outstanding dues. On February 7, 2014, this Court directed the petitioner to pay the amount in ten (10) installments, against which the writ petitioners preferred an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, vide Order dated July 2, 2014, allowed the appeal, granting DVC the liberty to file a suit, pursuant to which the money suit was filed.

4. Meanwhile, on January 13, 2022, the petitioners made an application for restoration of electricity. On January 31, 2022, the DVC claimed a sum of Rs.2,72,96,891/-as outstanding dues against the petitioners, with Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the claim of the DVC is barred by Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in brief, “the 2003 Act”), since the outstanding DPS was not shown regularly in the bills during two years subsequent to the disconnection. Secondly, it is argued that after termination of the power purchase agreement by operation of the Jharkhand Regulations, there cannot subsist any “outstanding dues”.

6. It is also argued by the petitioners that the DVC acted de hors the law in claiming outstanding dues at their own rates, despite the Jharkhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (JERC) having fixed retail tariff in the meantime. It is contended that since the generation tariff for the relevant period has already been assessed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), the retail tariff of Jharkhand is required to be calculated on such basis. It is submitted that the claim now made by the DVC did not find place in the winding up petition or the suit filed by the DVC. Moreover, the claim was never shown in the bills before disconnection.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterates that the provisional tariff previously assessed for Jharkhand has now merged into the final tariff and, as such, the latter has to be the basis of the claim for outstanding dues, if any.

8. It is further contended that after the revised CERC rates came into force on May, 2010, the DVC could not charge the petitioner for electricity supply at its own rates. In such context, learned counsel places reliance on Section 43(2), Section 45(1) and Section 79(1)(b) of the 2003 Act to contend that it was the duty of the DVC/licensee to restore the electricity connection of the petitioner in terms of the CERC Regulations. The Central Commission has, as one of its functions, the regulation of tariff of generating companies.

9. The learned Senior Advocate for the DVC controverts the submissions made by the petitioners. Placing reliance on Clause 12.7 of the JERC Regulations of 2015 pertaining to Electricity Supply Code, it is contended by the DVC that after the lapse of 180 days from disconnection, there has been no subsisting agreement between the parties. Hence, any order of restoration of electricity connection, if passed in the writ petition, would amount to reviving a terminated contract.

10. Clause 12.13 of the JERC Regulation of 2015 mandates that for restoration of electricity connection, disconnected for non-payment of electricity charges, the