IMPORTANT POINT
The court held that a licensee can correct a bona fide mistake in billing even after the two-year limitation period for recovery of dues under Section 56(2) of The Electricity Act, 2003.

JUDGMENT :

(Michael Zothankhuma, J.)

1. Heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel for the APDCL.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.07.2017, by which the revised assessment bill for the electricity charges for the period 12.11.2013 to 20.07.2014 has been made.

3. The petitioner’s case is that the payment for unauthorized use of electricity had been decided by the Appellate Forum in terms of Section 127 of The Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), vide order dated 25.03.2015 passed in Appeal No.09/2015 and the assessment bill dated 28.03.2015 had been made in pursuance to the said order dated 25.03.2015. The petitioner’s further case is that the said bill dated 28.03.2015 could not have been revised by the impugned bill dated 25.07.2017, in terms of Section 56(2) of the Act and especially when the assessment amount, made in terms of the assessment bill dated 28.03.2015, had been paid by the petitioner.

4. The APDCL had initially made a provisional assessment and final assessment bill under Section 126 of the Act, for unauthorized use of electricity due to tampering with the electricity meter. The appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 127 of the Act was decided by the Appellate Forum, vide order dated 25.03.2015 in Appeal No.09/2015, by directing the Industrial Revenue Collection Area (IRCA) to prepare a new bill without surcharge, which was to be lower than the final assessment bill earlier made, to be paid by the petitioner. The operative portion of the order dated 25.03.2015 is as follows :

“Appellate Authority after going through all the arguments and documentary evidence became sure that malpractice in the meter was committed but as the T&C Division inspected the metering system on 12.11.2013 and fund ok, so the penalty is imposed from the date of 2nd inspection i.e. 27.08.2014 and not from the date of cover opening i.e 05.03.2013. So IRCA should prepare the new bill and no surcharge should be levied and if the penalty bill amount is less thon already paid bill, if should be adjusted in future bills.

The case is disposed off copies of order should be served to all the parties.”

5. Pursuant to the direction passed by the Appellate Forum in Appeal No.09.2015, the APDCL issued a fresh bill dated 28.03.2015, which was lesser than the final assessment bill made earlier. As per the new bill dated 28.03.2015, the petitioner was to pay an additional amount of Rs.14,73,957/-. The same was paid by the petitioner.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that after payment of the bill dated 28.03.2015 amounting to Rs.14,73,957/-, the APDCL revised the amount payable by the petitioner, by adding a further amount of Rs.2,87,982/-, vide revised assessment bill dated 25.07.2017.

7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in terms of Section 56(2) of the Act, the amount of Rs.2,87,982/- which was not reflected in the earlier bill dated 28.03.2015, could not be sought to be recovered from the petitioner, as the same was not recoverable after a period of 2 years from the date when such sum first became due, unless the said amount had been shown to be continuously recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied. He further submits that as the assessment bill dated 28.03.2015 had been made in terms of the direction passed by the Appellate Forum in the order dated 25.03.2015 passed in Appeal No.09/2015, the revised bill dated 25.07.2017 could not have been issued, as the same was not made in terms of the order dated 25.03.2015 passed in Appeal No.09/2015.

8. Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the APDCL, on the other hand submits that the assessment bill dated 28.03.2015 was revised, vide the reassessment bill dated 25.07.2017, in view of the fact that an audit team from the office of the Accountant General during their inspection from 13.06.2016 to 30.06.2016 raised objection on the asses