I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of this set of the writ petitions inasmuch as all these writ petitions, having raised, substantially, same questions of law, have been heard together. These cases are slightly unusual; it is unusual, because, ordinarily, the facts of a case, in a judgment, are first narrated in order to appreciate, correctly, the application of the law, which may have a bearing on the given case. In the cases at hand, however, several common questions of law have been raised and if the answers to the questions, so raised, are settled, it would become easier to determine the application of law governing the cases involved in this set of writ petitions. Keeping this end in view, let me, first, formulate the common questions of law, which have been raised in these writ petitions. The questions are:

(i) Whether the Assam State Electricity Board ('the Board') has, under the law, continued to function, or can be said to have continued to function, beyond 9.6.2004, as a State Transmission Utility as well as Licensee as defined under the Electricity Act, 2003 ('2003 Act')?

(ii) Whether the Board is, under the law, competent to realize the dues, which became payable by a consumer under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 ('1910 Act') and if so, is there any limitation imposed on such a right of the Board?

(iii) On Coming into force of 2003 Act, with effect from the appointed date, i.e., 10.6.2003, whether the Board's right to realize its dues, from a consumer for his consumption of electricity, can be exercised at any point of time or is there any limitation on such right of recovery, which may have, otherwise, been available, under 1910 Act, to the Board?

(iv) After coming into force of the 2003 Act, whether the Board can cut off supply of electricity to a consumer for unpaid dues, if the unpaid dues are sought to be recovered by raising a bill for consumption of electricity, though no bill was raised within a period of one month from the date of consumption of electricity nor was the sum, claimed as dues, was continuously shown recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied for a period of twenty five months from the date of consumption of the electrical energy?

(v) If no notice of demand, notice of recovery or notice of disconnection was served, on a consumer, before coming into force of the 2003 Act, whether it would be permissible for the Board to recover such dues or cut off the supply of electricity to the consumer by taking recourse to its rights under the 1910 Act, and if so, is there any limitation on such exercise of the right of the Board?

2. I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, Mr. S.N. Sharma, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Ms. M. Hazarika and Mr. M.B. Choudhury, learned senior Counsel, for the petitioners, and Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. B.D. Das, learned Standing counsel, ASEB, appearing on behalf of the Assam State Electricity Board. I have also heard Mr. H.K. Sharma, learned Counsel, for the Assam Industrial Development Corporation.

3. Let me, now, deal with the questions, which have been formulated above, as common questions of law.

4. The State Electricity Boards used to exist, on the strength of their formation, in terms of the provisions of Section 5(1) of the 1910 Act. It is, therefore, not in dispute that a Board, as defined in Section 2(7) of the 2003 Act, now, means a State Electricity Board constituted under the provisions of Section 5(1) of the 1910 Act.

5. There is no dispute that 2003 Act, has come into force w.e.f. 10.6.2003, which is the appointed day within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the 2003 Act. There is also no dispute that with the coming into force of the 2003 Act, on the date aforementioned, 1910 Act, stood repealed under the provisions of Section 185 of the 2003 Act, except to the extent as Section 185, otherwise, provides.

6. I may, now, turn to Section 185, which embodies the provisions with regard to repeal and saving.