The limitation period for recovering electricity dues commences on the date the bill is first issued, not due to prior usage.

1. The petitioner is a consumer of electricity under the respondent No.1, the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL).

2. Initially, the petitioner was enjoying a low tension bulk service connection, which was converted subsequently to high tension service connection due to enhancement of load from August 7, 2014.

3. A bill was raised by the WBSEDCL on November 5, 2019 for the first time for the period September, 2014 to April, 2019 on the ground of arrear, since a wrong multiplying factor was allegedly applied. The bill was raised for the billing cycle October, 2019 with the reading date as November 1, 2019. The total amount of dues as per the bill was Rs.1,90,05,225/-, out of which the due for the current period was Rs.7,09,649.44p and the alleged arrears for the period from September, 2014 to April, 2019 comprised of the balance. The petitioner has made payment with regard to the current consumption but has challenged the alleged arrears of Rs.1,83,07,977/-.

4. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner argues that the claim of the WBSEDCL for the period September, 2014 to April 2019 is palpably barred by S.56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as, "the 2003 Act"), as on November 5, 2019. It is submitted that, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer(D1) Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and another v. Rahamatullah Khan , reported at 2020 (4) SCC 650 : (AIROnLine 2020 SC 208), the "first due" date as contemplated in S.56(2) of the 2003 Act is the date when the bill is issued for the first time to the consumer. In the present case, it is argued, since the bill was raised only on November 5, 2019, the same was barred under the aforesaid provision of law.

5. The learned Senior Advocate also submits, on instruction, that a substantial amount has already been paid in terms of the bills raised in lieu of arrears. The petitioner is agreeable to clear off the balance amount of quarterly installments of Rs.15 lakh each, starting from December, 2022 which would take the last installment prior to the completion of the year 2023.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the WBSEDCL places reliance on the Supreme Court Judgment of M/s. Prem Cottex v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others, an unreported judgment dated October 5, 2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.7235 of 2009 (AIROnLine 2021 SC 848). In the said judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated the ratio of Rahamutullah Khan (supra) inasmuch as the "first due" would mean the date on which the bill is issued.

7. However, in the said latter judgment, it was also observed by the Supreme Court that the decision in Rahamatullah Khan (AIROnLine 2020 SC 208) (supra) was distinguishable on facts. The Supreme Court also observed in M/s. Prem Cottex (AIROnLine 2021 SC 848) (supra) that the second part of S.56(2) of the 2003 Act is an exception to the law of limitation.

8. In the present case, it is contended by the WBSEDCL, the bill was raised only on November 5, 2019 and the said arrears were arrived at on the basis of less billing. It is submitted that after the LT bulk service connection was converted to HT bulk service connection due to enhancement of contractual load on August 7, 2014, the particulars of meter and switch gear were uploaded in the data - base prior to raising the bill. During such process, the CT ratio of switch gear was originally set at 50/5A, but erroneously got registered at 25/5A in the data - base. Hence, the net multiplying factor of 500 was imposed for calculation of billing instead of actual net Multiplying Factor (MF) of 1000 from the billing cycle September, 2014.

9. Wh