JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent APDCL.

2. The petitioner herein has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court challenging the bill dated 14.03.2019 of an amount of Rs. 5,82,030/- (Rupees Five Lakh Eighty Two Thousand Thirty) as well as the notice dated 04.04.2019. The specific case of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that all along the bills which have been raised by the Respondent APDCL would show that the maximum consumption of units of the petitioner in a month was 2286. However, for the bill period of 31.10.2018 to 31.12.2018, the unit consumption shown was 61238 and on the basis thereof, a bill was generated of an amount of Rs. 5,34,015/- (Rupees Five Lakh Thirty Four Thousand Fifteen).

3. Mr. M. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition the affidavit-in-opposition had been filed wherein the Respondent Authorities have categorically admitted that the meter in question was healthy, and as such, the consumption of the units as have been mentioned of 61238 could not have been there. The learned counsel further submitted that even from the document enclosed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit-in-opposition, it would be seen that the units said to be consumed i.e. 61238 units is for a period of 55 months which is contrary to Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2013.

4. Per contra Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf the Respondent APDCL submitted that there was nothing wrong with the meter. He submitted that upon investigation being carried out by the Office of the Jalukbari Electrical Sub-Division along with the T&C division Wing, a CMRI or actual billing report in the meter in reference for the actual consumption of the meter for the last 5 (five) months was recorded. He further submitted that after thorough checking and examination of the records it was found that a meter reading on 01.10.2018 was recorded as 150119.90 KWH whereas in the energy bill it was shown only 91894 KWH.

5. Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent APDCL submitted that the consumer was not billed on actual meter consumption and it was done due to either oversight or collection of improper readings by the meter reader. The difference of the consumption of 61238 units have been accumulated and no bill was raised due to non-recording of the actual consumption of units for the previous years and accordingly the Sub Divisionol Engineer, Jalukbari Electrical Sub-Division vide letter dated 29.03.2019 informed the Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Maligaon the total difference of the units which was unbilled due to recording of wrong consumption units shown in the energy bill.

6. As regards the submission pertaining to the application of Section 56 of the Electricity Act 2013, Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent APDCL has submitted that the liability to pay arises on the consumption of the electricity. He submitted that the obligation to pay would arise when the bill is issued by the licensee company quantifying the charges to be paid. The learned Standing Counsel therefore submitted that the bill dated 12.01.2019 which have been impugned in the instant proceeding was issued by the APDCL Authorities quantifying the charges to be paid. The learned Standing Counsel therefore submitted that the electricity charges would there