ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent in Lr.No. EE / O&M / My1 / AAO / RB / AS2 / F. BOAB / D1162 / 2017 dated 03.02.2017 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, untenable under law and barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 and against the provisions of Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code 2004 and violative of Principles of natural justice.

2.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is doing high class vegetarian hotel business for the last 60 to 70 years. The petitioner is regular in payment of current consumption charges as demanded by the officers of the respondents. From the year 2007 onwards, the respondents were unable to meet the required power supply on the State of Government of Tamilnadu and on the request of the first respondent, the Government of Tamilnadu had issued restriction and control orders and imposed quota in the use of power supply by the H.T.Industrial and Commercial consumers apart from scheduled and unscheduled power cut. While so, the third respondent issued a show cause notice dated 03.02.2017 in Lr.No. EE / O&M / My1 / AAO / RB / AS2 / F. BOAB / D1162 / 2017, demanding a sum of Rs.75,384/- towards short fall amount of current consumption charges for non-adoption of correct average of current consumption during the meter defective period from 3/2011 to 3/2012. Aggrieved by the show cause notice, the petitioner filed the objection and requested to review the demand made by the third respondent. However, there was no reply from the respondents. Therefore, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent claimed audit short fall of consumption charges for non-adoption of correct average of current consumption during the meter defective period between 03/2011 and 03/2012, belatedly, that too after a lapse of 6 years, in the year 2017. The learned counsel would further submit that, in terms of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the period of limitation prescribed for collecting the arrears was prescribed as two years from the date when such sum becomes first due. In the present case, since the demand was made beyond the period of limitation and therefore, the impugned demand cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed.

4.Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that admittedly, the petitioner has not paid the shortfall for the period between 03/2011 and 03/2012 and therefore, the third respondent has rightly issued the demand notice by furnishing all the details. He would also submit that during audit inspection, it was found that the petitioner was due to pay the arrears and as per audit report, the demand has been made and without making the payment, the petitioner has approached this Court and hence, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on records.

6.It is relevant to extract Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which reads as under:

“56 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”

7.A perusal of the above, it is clear that no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied. Therefore, the provision of Section 56 of the