A licensee cannot exercise the power of electricity disconnection for the recovery of arrears that are more than two years old, unless such sums were continuously shown as recoverable in previous bills, though the licensee may still pursue recovery of the debt through other legal channels.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. AK Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. KP Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL appearing for the respondent authorities.

[2] The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the bill issued by the APDCL dated 02.07.2021 for an amount of Rs.18,66,000/- and further the action of disconnection resorted by the respondent authorities, which as per the petitioner was in gross violation to Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2003”).

[3] The brief facts, which led to the filing of the present writ petition are:-

That the petitioner is in the business of hospitality, owning a hotel, under the name and style of “Hotel Dynasty” situated in Guwahati. The petitioner has a connection provided by the APDCL authorities and the Consumer No. of the petitioner is 006000000373.

[4] It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner since establishing its hotel in the year 1984 had been regularly paying the bills raised. However, out of the blue, an amount of Rs.18,66,000/- was demanded on account of some purported surcharge for the period from June 1991 to July 2005 on the basis of a purported AG Audit Report for the period 2007-2008.

[5] It is the case of the petitioner that there was no amount payable during the period from June 1991 to July 2005 for any such purported late payment nor a demand was made by the respondents during the period impugned or any time after 2007-2008.

[6] The petitioner has also enclosed to the writ petition, the bills for the last 2 (two) years, wherein there has been no reference to any late payments surcharge due from the petitioner’s company. However, on 22.07.2021, the petitioner received a Communication to make certain payments within 15 (fifteen) days from the receipt of the said letter or face disconnection. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 23.07.2021.

[7] The learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide an order dated 04.08.2021 issued notice, returnable by 3 (three) weeks and also directed the respondents/APDCL to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 17.07.2021 under the Surcharge Waiver Scheme within a period of 3 (three) weeks. Further to that, the learned Co-ordinate Bench directed that no coercive measures, more specifically disconnection of power supply to the premises of the petitioner’s company shall be carried out in respect to the electricity bill dated 02.07.2021.

[8] The record reveals that in pursuance to the writ petition being filed and notice issued, the respondent authorities had filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 21.03.2025. The respondents contend that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available thereby to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums. In addition to that, it was mentioned on merits that a bill for an amount of Rs.6,22,000/- towards energy charges was raised by the APDCL upon the petitioner on May, 1991 for the period 11.04.1989 and 11.10.1990. The said bill was raised pursuant to Meter Testing and an Inspection Division Report in July 1990. The petitioner thereupon made payment of an amount of Rs.6,78,000/- which included Rs.56,000/- towards surcharge in installments after an inordinate delay, during August, 2005 and May, 2006.

[9] It was further contended in the said affidavit-in-opposition that as p