The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of legal provisions regarding the recovery of time-barred debts and the applicability of limitation periods to electricity charges under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, and the Electricity Act, 2003.

Challenge in both these writ petitions are against the revenue recovery steps initiated for realising arrears of electricity charges due to the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). In W.P (c) No.28558/2013 there is also challenge against the validity of Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (KRR Act for short). In W.P (c) No.17300/2013 challenge is raised on the ground of bar under Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. Eventhough this court is not prima facie satisfied to entertain challenge on the question of validity of Section 71 of the KRR Act or on the challenge based on Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, there is a common issue involved as to whether the revenue recovery can be initiated after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963.

3. The petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala V. V.R. Kalliyanikutty (1999 (2) KLT 146 (SC). Based on the dictum that provisions contained in KRR Act do not create any new right but only provides a process of speedy recovery, it is contended that KSEB cannot recover any amount which they cannot recover through a suit or other legal proceedings. The apex court held that the KRR Act only provides a coercive method of recovery which only enables recovery of amounts which are not time barred and are legally recoverable. It is held that under Section 71 of the KRR Act, claims which are time barred on the date when the requisition is issued under Section 69 (2), cannot be recovered, because they are not amounts due under Section 71. Based on the dictum it is contended that the arrears in these cases remain barred by limitation as on the date of requisition issued under Section 69 (2).

4. In the above context, dispute arises as to what is the period of limitation applicable to KSEB. Is it the period of 3 years prescribed under Article 113 or the period of 30 years prescribed under Article 112 of Part IX and X in the schedule appended to the Limitation Act, is the question. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Article 112 is applicable only with respect to suits filed by or on behalf of State Government. The KSEB, eventhough is a 'State' coming within Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is not a Government and the provisions of Article 112 will not apply, is the contention. It is contended that SRO No.169/69 issued under Section 71 of the KRR Act making provisions of the said Act applicable to KSEB cannot have any effect on the period of limitation. Such notification or provisions of the KRR Act do not create any new right on KSEB to recover any amount which remains time barred. In support of the said proposition, the petitioners placed heavy reliance on a recent decision of this court in Siddique V. Tahsildar (2013 (2) KLT 544). A learned judge of this court had followed dictum contained in the apex Court decision in Kalliyanikutty's case (cited supra) to hold the question in favour of the petitioners.

5. A brief scanning of the legal precedents related to the issue may be of beneficial. One of the first decisions on the point, rendered by this court is in A.K. Nanu and others V. State of Kerala and others (1987 (2) KLT 921). A Division Bench of this court held that the KRR Act cannot be invoked to recover a debt which is barred by limitation, based on any notification issued under Section 71. In the absence of any provision creating a substantive right to recover time barred debts the Act providing for summary recovery is of no avail, once the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act had expired. The Act only provides for an easy recovery, not a recovery at any time.

6. But a Full Bench of this court in Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd. V. P.S. John and others (1996 (1) KLT 814 (FB) had taken a different view. But the Full Bench decision was reversed by the apex Court in Kalliyanikutty's case (cited supra). Another Division Bench decision i