The obligation to pay electricity charges arises upon the issuance of the bill, thus supplementary demands can be made regardless of billing errors, provided service is not disconnected for payment failures after two years.

Judgment :

(MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.)

Heard Mr. O. P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel for the APDCL.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned letter dated 22.11.2014, issued by the respondent No. 3 to the petitioner, by which a supplementary bill, amounting to Rs.24,64,222/-, for the period w.e.f. 21.06.2007 to 01.11.2012 and 22.04.2013 to 30.06.2014, has been served upon the petitioner, inasmuch as, the energy bill served upon the petitioner earlier for the above-said period, had been calculated with the Multiplying Factor of 1, which had been corrected by way of the supplementary bill, by using the correct Multiplying Factor of 15. The petitioner has also put to challenge the impugned letter dated 15.05.2015 issued by the respondent No. 5, which rejected the petitioner’s appeal for dismissing the supplementary bill.

3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner had been issued a supplementary bill dated 21.11.2014, for paying electricity bill amounting to Rs.24,64,222/-. The supplementary bill was for payment of electricity charges by applying the Multiplying Factor of 15 for two periods, i.e., from 21.06.2007 to 01.11.2012 and from 22.04.2013 to 30.06.2014.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the supplementary bill, pertaining to st the 1 period, i.e., 21.06.2007 to 01.11.2012, is hit by Section 56 (2) of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 and as the said assessment for electricity has been made known to the petitioner only in the year 2014, the petitioner is not liable to pay the electricity bill for the said period, as it is hit by limitation. However, the petitioner is liable to pay the electricity charges, in terms of the supplementary nd bill for the 2 period, i.e., from 22.04.2013 to 30.06.2014, as the same is within two years from the date of receipt of the supplementary bill.

5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nagam Limited and Another vs. Rahamatullah Khan Alias Rahamjulla, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 650, the Supreme Court had held that in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 56 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable under Section 56 , after the expiry of two years from the date when the sum became “first due”, unless such sum was shown continuously recoverable as arrears of charges for the electricity supplied nor could the licensee/company disconnect the supply of the consumer.

6. Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel for the APDCL, on the other hand, submits that the Supreme Court in the above case of Rahamatullah Khan (supra) has clarified as to when the electricity charges would become “first due”, to mean that it would become due only after the bill is issued to the consumer, even though the liability to pay may arise on the date of consumption of electricity. Further, the period of limitation of two years would commence from the date when the electricity charges became “first due” under Sub-Section (2) of Section 56 of the ELECTRICITY ACT .

7. In the present case, the supplementary bill with the Multiplying Factor of 15, had been issued only on 21.11.2014 and as such the electricity charges became “first due” from 21.11.2014. Thus, there was no question of the supplementary bill being hit by Section 56 (2) of the ELECTRICITY ACT . He submits that in any event, Section 56 (2) of the ELECTRICITY ACT is not with regard to the limitation being imposed on the payment of e