The Electricity Act permits civil recovery of dues beyond two years, but disconnection for non-payment is restricted to within that period.

1. Both the Writ Petitions involve similar question of facts and law and hence by consent of both the sides these Petitions are heard together and finally decided at the stage of admission.

2. There is no dispute with regard to the facts involved in these petitions. However for the sake of convenience, the same are reproduced herein below.

3. Respondent, an Education Institution, is consumer of Electricity and was given two electricity connections under Consumer Nos. 065748000199 and 065740001463, having 5 HP load under residential tariff as per the then prevailing tariff order. On 27.08.2015 petitioners flying squad conducted an inspection in the premises of the respondent, wherein it was found that the electricity connection is being used for running college as well as other public utility services. Hence, it was suggested that the tariff category of the respondent should be changed from LT-VA to LT-XA( Public Service) as per then prevailing tariff. The Petitioner company considering the inspection report issued supplementary bills of Rs.9,50,902.05 dated 08.09.2015 and Rs.1,27,000/- dated 30.03.2016.

4. Respondent being aggrieved by the said supplementary/ differential bill challenged the same before Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC). After hearing both the sides IGRC has rejected the complaint of the respondent. Respondent being aggrieved by the said order dated 23.03.2016 passed by IGRC, challenged the same before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (for short “CGRF”). On 24.06.2016, the said complaint was allowed by passing impugned order, hence these Petitions.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner by relying upon the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court has sought to canvass that there is no embargo on the petitioner company to issue bill, once it is found that the category of tariff was wrongly applied to the respondent. It is submitted that the said mistake has been realised to the petitioner only after the flying squad inspected the premises of the respondent. Thus it is his submission that there cannot be any restriction on the petitioner in not only issuing the bill for the difference of amount but also to recover the same. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court and Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the date of Prem Cottex Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 870. He submitted that the bill has been issued on 08.09.2015 and 30.03.2016 and as per the law settled by this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court, the bill becomes due as on the date of issuance of the same and not on the date of consumption of the electricity and as such the bills issued in question are recoverable against respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, opposed the said submission by contending that the law on the point of recovery of the bill under Section 56 of the Electricity Act has been settled to say that the electricity bill cannot be recovered for the period of two years prior to the issuance of the bill. It is thus his submission that in any case the electricity has been consumed prior to year 2015 and 2016 and as such it is not open for the petitioner company to raise and recover the bill on the ground that the incorrect tariff has been applied. It is his submission that the impugned order is just legal and proper and does not require any interference. Without prejudice to his submissions, it is argued that the respondent in any case is entitled to raise issue with regard to the applicability of tariff applied to the respondent institute. The said contention is opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that this issue was never raised before the forum nor has been considered and hence it is not open for the respondent to raise the said issue for the first time in these petitions.

7. A Three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala S