Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is placed before this Bench of Three Judges in terms of the Order dated 02.04.2013 to decide as to whether the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 14.11.2006 in Writ Appeal No. 189/2004 (Assam State Electricity Board and Anr. Vs. Mokalbari Kanoi Tea Estate (P) Ltd.) is in conflict with the law laid down by the Apex Court in M/s. Hindustan Times Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors, reported in AIR 1998 SC 688. For the present, this preface may suffice and we shall indicate the issues involved and the questions raised in this Appeal at an appropriate stage.

2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent, which is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It carries on business, inter-alia, of plantation, manufacture and sale of black tea and owns two factories, namely, Mokalbari Tea Estate (new) and Mokalbari Tea Estate (old) in the district of Dibrugarh, Assam. The Appellant Board supplied power to the aforesaid tea estates. Up to March 1993, the total load released in favour of the New factory was 570 KW and for the Old factory, 540 KW. On writ petitioner's request for sanction of additional load, the Appellant Board provided additional load of 68 KW and 98 KW to the New and Old factories, respectively, with effect from 08.04.1993. Thus, the total load released towards both New and Old factory was 638 KW each. Bills raised by the Board were regularly paid and there was no default.

3. In the month of September 1998, when it was noticed that the Board was raising bills showing the load as 570 KW and 548 KW for the New and Old factory, respectively, instead of 638 KW, the same was brought to the notice of the appellant No. 4, the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer with a request to show the correct load in the bills. The appellant No. 4 responded by raising two bills, both dated 08.12.1998, one for New factory and the other for the Old factory, raising demand of arrear amount to the tune of Rs. 2,53,428/- and Rs. 3,67,728/-, respectively. Both the bills also included current Charges as well. The arrear component comprised of Minimum Charge and Fixed Charge. While Minimum Charge amount in respect of New factory is Rs. 22,848/-, the Fixed Charge amount is Rs. 2,30,400/-. Corresponding figures for New factory are Rs. 32,928/- and Rs. 3,34,800/-, respectively. While the Fixed Charge in respect of both the factories was for the period October 1994 to September 1998, the Minimum Charge bill raised for New factory was from January, 1994 to April, 1994 and for the Old factory for the period December, 1993 to March, 1994. On clarifications being sought by the writ petitioner, by letter dated 11.01.1999, it was informed that there was under billing as while raising the bills during the interregnum, additional load supplied was not taken into consideration.

4. The writ petitioner appealed to the appellant No. 2 i.e. the Additional Chief Engineer (Com) to revise the bills towards the arrear demand for the period of three years preceding starting from 08.12.1995 up to 08.12.1998. The appeal was disposed of by an order dated 19.03.1999 directing the writ petitioner to clear the outstanding arrear bills in five equal installments with the first payment on or before 31.03.1999 and also levying a surcharge of 20% per annum and 24% per annum in respect of New factory and Old factory, respectively.

5. The writ petition was, thereafter, filed with the plea that the Board cannot enforce its claim beyond three years, which is the period of limitation for filing of a suit. It was also pleaded that the Board could not have levied surcharge.

6. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the appellants in the writ petition, amongst others, it is stated that till the bills dated 08.12.1998 were issued, bill for Minimum Charges and Fixed Charges were never raised for the enhanced additional load. Charges for electricity consumed become due within the meaning of Section 24 of the In