Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
K. Rama Devi - Petitioner
Versus
TSPDCT Ltd. and Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 6423 Of 2023
Decided On : 30-10-2023
ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 - SECTION 56(2) - LIMITATION PERIOD FOR RECOVERY OF DUES - APPLICABILITY - DISCONNECTION OF SUPPLY - CONDITIONS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an agriculturist, purchased land in 1992 and obtained four LT Agricultural Service connections. She stopped agricultural operations and transferred the land in 1999. In 2015, she received a call from the Assistant Divisional Engineer, who informed her about outstanding bills from 1999 to 2015. She paid a sum of Rs.29,750/- for each service connection. Later, she received notices alleging dues of over Rs.1 lakh for each connection. She filed a complaint with the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF), which dismissed her complaint. She appealed to the Vidyut Ombudsman, who also rejected her appeal. She filed a writ petition challenging the distraint notices, orders, and notices issued by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's liability to pay electricity dues arose when the bills were issued, not when the electricity was consumed. The limitation period of two years under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, commenced from the date the electricity charges became "first due." The court found that no bills were issued to the petitioner since 1999, and therefore, the demand for payment of electricity bills raised by the respondents was barred by limitation.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay electricity dues for the period subsequent to 1999 when she had already transferred the land and stopped agricultural operations? 2. Whether the demand for payment of electricity bills raised by the respondents is barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003?
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and held that the limitation period of two years for recovery of electricity dues commences from the date when the electricity charges became "first due." The court further held that if any dues are pending, they shall be continuously shown in the bills, or else the claim of the department gets barred. In the present case, no bills were issued to the petitioner since 1999, and therefore, the respondents' claim was barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the Vidyut Ombudsman and the consequential notice issued by the respondents, and directed the Vidyut Ombudsman to reconsider the whole issue in conformity with the principles of natural justice within four weeks.
ORDER :
Heard Mrs K.Jayasree, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr R.Vinod Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ or order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring (a) distraint notices dated nil issued to the petitioner in respect of Service Connection bearing Nos. 5122400061, 5122400065, 5122400066 and 5122400068 (b) order of the 6th respondent dated 03.01.2023 in Appeal No.20/2022-23 and notice in letter No.AAO/ERO/CPL/JAO/ Billing/D.No.607/22, dated 20.01.2023 of the 4th respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, void and contrary to Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 an 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same.
PERUSED THE RECORD
3. The counter affidavit is filed by respondents 2, 3 and 5, in particular, paras 6, 9 and 10 read as under:
9. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed an Appeal bearing No. 20/2022- 23 before the Vidyut Ombudsman against the orders of the CGRF and has held that as per the Memo dated 11.03.2015 of the Chief General Manager, Commercial, the petitioner being an Income Tax assesse cannot be provided with free power supply. The ombudsman has further held that the petitioner is not entitled for any reversion of the bills for power supply as she did not comply with the stipulated conditions to avail the benefits of tariff of power supply to the agriculture service connection. The ombudsman has taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has applied for dismantling of service connection on 23.01.2020 in the Consumer service centre hence the respondents are entitled to demand the arrears before dismantling the service connections.
10. It is submitted that the petitioner having suffered two consequential orders before the competent Forum established under the Electricity Act, 2003 has again raised the same pleas before this Honourable Court. The CGRF and the Vidyut Ombudsman being expert bodies have technically qualified persons as their members and their orders are passed after examining the billing disputes by verifying the records and the applicable provisions of the GTCS, the tariff orders issued by the TSERC and the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.”
4. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter filed by respondents 2, 3 and 5 denying the averments made in the counter affidavit.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
DISCUSSION
5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased land to an extent of Ac.26.07 gts situated in Toopranpet Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District in the year 1992 for carrying out agricultural operations and there were three bore wells existing for providing water facility to the crops. Even before the petitioner had purchased the said land, the previous owner had obtained 4 L.T Agricultural Service connections bearing Nos. 5122400061, 5122400065, 5122400066 and 5122400068 from the erstwhile APSEB. It is further the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner carried out agricultural operations till the year 1999, the petitioner stopped the same in the year 1999 and in the very same year, the petitioner executed Gift Settlement Deeds in favour of the pe
The limitation period of two years under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, for recovery of electricity dues commences from the date when the electricity charges became "first due." If any d....
Supplementary bills can be raised for mistakes, but disconnection for non-payment after two years is prohibited under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
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 bil....
The right to recover electricity dues through civil suits is not barred by the two-year limitation for disconnection proceedings under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act.
The court established that while disconnection for non-payment is limited to two years, the right to recover amounts through civil proceedings remains intact.
The court affirmed that continuous showing of arrears in monthly bills permits recovery beyond the two-year limitation under Section 56 of the Electricity Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Electricity Act imposes a statutory duty on the respondents to provide electricity connection to the petitioner within a specified period,....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
