IMPORTANT POINT
Electricity charges can only be recovered within two years from the date they first became due, which is determined by when the consumer is notified of the outstanding amount.

ORDER :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner firm, who is involved in the business of cutting and processing the marble tiles. The petitioner was having electricity connection of 88 HP. On 24.07.2003, the factory premises of the petitioner was inspected, wherein certain irregularities were pointed out by the Inspection Team and the inspection report dated 24.07.2003 (Annex.1) was prepared. On the very next day, the team inspected the factory premises of the petitioner and certain readings were taken and a note in this regard was prepared. The representative of the petitioner firm viz. Sh. Manish Jain was present during the inspection. It is stated in the writ petition that the respondents thereafter did not revert back to the petitioner for good three and half years and the petitioner was under the impression that there is nothing adverse against it.

2. On 22.11.2006, the petitioner received a notice (Annex.3) while indicating that on account of inspection conducted on 24.07.2003, the petitioner has been found committing theft of electricity and it is thus liable to pay Rs.4,10,399/- within seven days, else the electricity supply of the petitioner firm would be disconnected. The petitioner being aggrieved of the notice dated 22.11.2006 (Annex.3) has preferred this writ petition.

3. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition, along with which they have placed on record the assessment sheet (Annex.R/1) indicating therein the outstanding amount due against the petitioner, which is to the tune of Rs.4,10,399/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said assessment sheet is of 24.07.2003 and the impugned notice has been issued on 22.11.2006; thus the case of the petitioner is hit by sub-Section (2) of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (‘Act’), which inter-alia provided that the respondents cannot recover the arrear of charges of electricity, as it is not recoverable after a period of two years from the date, when such sum became first due and electricity supply could not be disconnected. He also submits that the assessment sheet dated 24.07.2003 (Annex.R/1) was never communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned notice has been issued in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing prior to issuing of the impugned notice dated 22.11.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondents in their reply have taken a vague stand that due to oversight the demand could not be raised immediately. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that there was delay in raising the demand, is reflected from their own reply.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submits that as per the provisions of Section 56 (2) of the Act, the date of knowledge of outstanding amount is required to be considered and in the present case, the knowledge of outstanding amount that was due, is 22.11.2006 (Annex.3). He further submits that the respondents were well within their right to recover the arrear of charges of electricity supplied to the petitioner firm. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner’s contention that it had not been afforded the opportunity of hearing prior to issuance of notice dated 22.11.2006 is misconceived, inasmuch as the joint inspection was conducted in the presence of petitioner’s representative; on the basis of which the joint inspection report dated 25.07.2003 (Annex.2) was prepared, and the petitioner has not given challenge to the same. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner has not disputed the outstanding amount while submitting that the amount has wrongly been calculated and thus even if the petitioner would have been afforded opportunity of hearing, then too, it would not have served any purpose. He also submits that the i