IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5724 of 2023 ===================================================

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED Versus DESAI TEJABHAI KALABHAI ===================================================

Appearance:

MS. MANVI DAMLE for NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ===================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Date : 05/04/2023 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Ms. Manvi Damle, learned counsel for Nanavati & Co., appearing for the writ-applicant.

2. The writ-applicant is a power distribution company and is aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2023 passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited) in Case No. UGM-03-0013-2022-23. By the said order, the Forum has directed the distribution company to revise the supplementary bill raised by it on the consumer for Rs.84,863.40 being the amount recoverable on account of mistake in application of multiplying factor for calculation of energy charges for the period from 25.05.2010 to 30.05.2022 and instead raise fresh bill for a period limited to 2 years, i.e. from 31.05.2020 to 30.05.2022. The Forum has relied upon Clause No. 6.84 of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2015.

3. Ms. Damle, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Rahamatullah Khan reported in (2020) 4 SCC 650. She submitted that the facts and situation are identical in the present case. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para-8 observed thus:

“8. Section 56(2), however, does not preclude the licensee company from raising a supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period of two years. It only restricts the right of the licensee to disconnect electricity supply due to nonpayment of dues after the period of limitation of two years has expired, nor does it restrict other modes of recovery which may be initiated by the licensee company for recovery of a supplementary demand.”

4. Ms. Damle, the learned counsel further submitted that the said ratio has also been followed in the case of M/s. Prem Cottex v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 870.

5. In view of above, issue Notice returnable on

07.06.2023.

6. In the meantime, the impugned order dated 07.01.2023 passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited) in Case No. UGM-03-0013- 2022-23 (Annexure-P-1) shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)

Pradhyuman