Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
Balaji Steel Rolling Industries - Petitioner
Versus
The Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4961 of 2017
Decided On : 06-09-2024
(A) Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 – Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Rules, 1985 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Writ Petition seeking to declare notices demanding arrears as arbitrary and illegal – Petitioner contended that arrears are not recoverable after two years unless continuously shown as recoverable – Court held that monthly arrears were continuously shown, thus allowing recovery – Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 6, 11, 12, 17, 19)
Facts of the case: The petitioner, a consumer under H.T-1 Category, challenged notices demanding substantial arrears, claiming they were illegal and that the respondents owed them money instead.
Findings of Court: The court found that the notices were legal and that the petitioner was liable for the dues claimed by the respondents.
Issues: Whether the action of respondents in issuing notices for recovery of dues was justified under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the continuous showing of arrears in monthly bills allowed for recovery, and the provisions of the Electricity Act were applicable.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demanding huge amounts as arrears without any basis and invoking the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 and the Rules made thereunder in G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 01.10.1985 called Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Rules, 1985 as wholly arbitrary, illegal and void and consequently, to set aside 1) Notice No.SE/OP/RR EAST/SAO/JAO-HT/SA-I/Form No.RRE146, D.No.1235, dated 22.7.2016, 2) Notice No. SE/OP/RR EAST/SAO/JAO-HT/SA-I/Form No-B/D.No.1549, dated 20.12.2016 of the 3rd respondent and further direct the respondents to pay Rs.1,19,61,783/- with future interest at 18% p.a to petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are: petitioner was consumer of the 1st respondent DISCOM with consumer No: RRE-146, under H.T-1 Category with a CMD of 2200 KVA. The Superintendent Engineer - the 3rd respondent served notice dated 22.07.2016 in Form-A of the APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Rules 1985 demanding C.C. Dues, FSA dues & R & C dues in a sum of Rs.3,79,09,032/- and surcharge of Rs.96,66,803/- at 1.5% pm i.e. 18% from 01.03.2015 to 31.07.2016, totalling to Rs.4,75,75,835/- within 15 days from the date of notice. Later on, the 3rd respondent issued another notice dated 20.12.2016 in Form 'B' under Rule-4(2) demanding Rs.3,78,71,666/- as C.C. dues, FSA dues & R &C dues and surcharge at 1.5% p.m. from 01.03.2015 to 30.11.2016 in a sum of Rs.1,19,01,241/- totalling Rs.4,98,01,241/- and further stated that if the amount is not paid within three months from the date of service of notice, petitioner would be deemed to be defaulter and the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
It is stated that the said two notices are not legal both on facts and law. Petitioner is not liable to pay the amount demanded and on the other hand, respondents are liable to pay Rs.1,19,61,783/- to petitioner. Further, it is stated that as per the letter dated 20.10.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent, the outstanding dues on account of ACD Surcharge, late payment charges, MD charges, FSA instalments in a sum of Rs.2,38,22,881-00 and R & C dues of Rs.15,71,347-00 totalling Rs.2,53,94,228-00. This amount of Rs.2,38,22,881/- is made up of wrongly levied R & C charges of Rs.1,22,54,715/- plus Rs.35,40,471/- as interest thereon. This amount of Rs.1,57,95,186/- is included in Bill dated 26.08.2013 as CC arrears and again interest is charged on this amount in a sum of Rs.44,27,756/-. An unexplained surcharge of Rs.6,01,217/- is included. CC bill of August 2014 of Rs.49,13,640/-is also included. It is stated that demand of Rs.2,53,94,228/- is wrong and the 3rd respondent admitted in his letter dated 23.12.2014 that R & C bills were wrongly raised at Rs.1,22,54,715/- as it was calculated at 60% power consumption and recalculation on the basis of 18 power on and 12 power off day R & C charges come to Rs.35,30,690/- and after waiver of 50%, net amount payable come to Rs.15,71,342/-. Therefore, inclusion of R & C charges plus interest thereon in a sum of Rs.2,02,22,842/- has to be removed from the demand, instead, respondents added this amount in the total due. In so far as CC bill of August 2014 is concerned, petitioner states that they paid Rs.31,54,525/- leaving balance of Rs.17,59,115/-, but respondents have not given credit to this amount and further a sum of Rs.3,28,879/- is included towards interest on R & C amount and an amount of Rs.28,089/- as surcharge; thus, a total of Rs.35,10,903/- is wrongly claimed. During R & C period, there was no minimum demand charges, but respondents have levied and collected Rs.36,51,600/- as minimum M.D. charges, but they have neither refunded nor adjusted. According to petitioner, after deleting illegal inclusion of Rs.2,02,22,402 + 35,10,903/- + 6,01,217/- (2,43,34,522) in the bills, there will be a balance of Rs.10,59,706/-. Petitioner further stated
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 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.
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.
The court established that an electricity company can issue revised bills for bona fide mistakes in billing, reinforcing the consumer's obligation to pay based on accurate meter readings.
The limitation period for recovering electricity dues under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is two years; claims beyond this period cannot be enforced.
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....
Point of law: Electricity – Recovery of due from subsequent owner - Article 62 of the Act, 1963 makes it clear that to enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage or otherwise charged upon immovab....
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
