The court reaffirmed that under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, charges for electricity consumed can only be recovered for a period not exceeding two years preceding the first demand bill.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

3. By this Writ Petition under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Nagpur, restricting the period of a bill to 24 months prior to issuance of the bill.

4. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present petition are as under:
Respondent No.1 is a Charitable Institution running a School. On 30.07.2007, the electric connection was granted to respondent No.1's premises, and the electricity supply was also started on the same day. According to respondent No.1, the petitioner did not send any bill. Therefore, respondent No.1 on 27.06.2012 requested the employee of the petitioner to issue a bill. According to respondent No.1, on 19.12.2014, a provisional bill of Rs.6,74,093/- was issued without mentioning the period of the bill. It is contended that on 10.03.2015, the bill for the period from 01.10.2012 to 28.02.2015 was issued, which was Rs.6,69,970/-. According to respondent No.1, again on 09.09.2015, the petitioner issued a bill of Rs.9,40,070/-.

5. Respondent No.1 applied to respondent No.2 under Regulation 6.4 of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006. The petitioner filed a reply on 13.05.2016, submitting that on 20.11.2014, employees of the petitioner inspected respondent No.1's meter, and it was observed that the bills were not issued. According to them, therefore, the provisional bill was issued for a period starting from August 2012 to November 2014. It is stated that the matter was reported to Superior Authorities to take action against the erring officer. It is alleged that respondent No.1, towards part payment of the bill, paid Rs.1,00,000/- in December 2015 and Rs.2,48,000/- in March 2016.

6. The learned Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and respondent No.2 by impugned order directed the petitioner to revise the electricity bill for 30.07.2007 to 20.11.2014. Further, the petitioner shall recover the electricity bill for the period 21.11.2012 to 20.11.2014 for 24 months only without delayed payment charges and interest and adjust part payment made by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a present petition challenging the order dated 08.06.2016.

7. Mr. S. V. Purohit, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.2 could not have restricted the bill up to 2 years preceding the date of the first bill. According to him, charges for electricity consumed become due only after Distribution Licensee issues the demand bill. According to him, there was no dispute regarding the consumption of electricity. According to him, respondent No.2 has misread S.56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 . He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Anr. v. Rahamatullah Khan Alias Rahamjulla reported in 2020 (4) SCC 650 : (AIROnLine 2020 SC 208) and in the case of Prem Cottex v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 870 : AIROnLine 2021 SC 848 to urge that the period of limitation of 2 years starts only after issuance of the bill and therefore, the respondent No.2 was not justified in restricting bill period prior to 24 months from the date of issuance of the bill.

8. Per contra, Mr. S. Y. Deopujari, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1, submitted that S.56(2) of the said Act entitles Distribution Licensee to demand charges for electricity consumption for a period not mor