The court emphasized the importance of complying with the notice requirement before disconnecting power and highlighted the limitations on charging the petitioner after the termination of the power supply agreement.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner-company was sanctioned 935 KW load by the respondent for its industrial unit, which was closed in the month of March, 2013. Till March, 2013, the petitioner had arrears of electricity for an amount of Rs. 76,84,561/-. It is stated by the petitioner that the power connection of the petitioner was also disconnected by the respondents somewhere in the month March, 2013, which is duly substantiated by the communication dated 09.03.2018 of the respondent No.2 to the petitioner pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2. Further as per communication dated 09.03.2018, an amount of Rs. 3,48,15,624/- was outstanding in the name of petitioner as arrears till ending January, 2018. While the petitioner continued to be in arrears, the Government of J&K issued Govt. Order No. 273-FD of 2018 dated 05.06.2018 by virtue of which sanction was accorded to waiver of 100 percent of interest and penalty on all the power arrears as on 31.12.2017 owed to the Govt. by the industrialists/hoteliers and tourist resort owners, registered with the department of Industries and Commerce, J&K/Department of Tourism, J&K respectively provided that the outstanding payment of power dues as on 31.03.2018 was made in a maximum of three equal instalments by or before 30.09.2018. The petitioner in order to avail the benefit of amnesty scheme as mentioned above, floated by the Govt. by virtue of communication dated 06.07.2018 intimated the respondent No. 2 of its willingness to avail the benefit under the amnesty scheme and also requested the respondent No. 2 to communicate the total arrears payable under the scheme to the petitioner. The said communication was received by the respondent No. 2 on 06.09.2018. Thereafter vide another Govt. Order No. 254-PDD of 2018 dated 24.12.2018, the Finance Department extended the benefit of Govt. Order No. 273-FD of 2018 dated 05.06.2018 till 27 January 2019 with the modification that the outstanding dues as on 31.03.2018 shall be paid in one instalment instead of three instalments. Thereafter, the petitioner vide representation dated 16.03.2019 requested the respondents to extend the last date for availing the benefit of Govt. Order dated 05.06.2018 as the respondents had not intimated the petitioner the dues payable by him, in response to its earlier communication dated 06.07.2018. Thereafter, when the said representation evoked no response from the respondents, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 27.01.2021 to the respondent No. 2 to convey the arrears of power bill to the petitioner within a period of 15 days, so that the petitioner could deposit the same. In response to the legal notice dated 27.01.2021, the respondent No. 3 informed the respondent No. 2 that as the amnesty scheme was not in vogue, therefore, the benefit of said scheme could not be extended to the petitioner and the outstanding liability of the petitioner was Rs. 5,74,24,642/-. The petitioner was accordingly intimated by the respondent No. 2.

2. By placing these facts before this Court, the petitioner has sought quashing of the bills dated 09.12.2020, 09.01.2021, 08.02.2021, 08.03.2021 and 11.07.2021 inasmuch as the same are illegal, arbitrary against the provisions contained in the Electricity Act, Rules as well as Regulations framed thereunder and has also sought indulgence of this Court for directing the respondents to grant benefit of amnesty scheme for Industrial, Hoteliers, Tourist Resort owners, Small Scale Industries by waiving off interest, penalty and surcharge on the power bills to the petitioner and for further directing the respondents to calculate the arrears to be paid by the petitioner till March 2013 after granting benefit of amnesty scheme.

3. The respondents have filed the response stating therein that as per available records of the Sub-division, the unit of the petitioner was closed in the month of March 2013 and zero units bills have been charged to the unit holder aft