O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent's impugned Circular Memo CFC/R/FC/R/DFC-R1/F.HTLT-RTI/D.30/2015, dated 03.02.2016 in so far as the para 3(iii) is concern and the consequential impugned demand notice bearing Lr.No. SE/ VREDC/ DFC/AO/Rev/ AAO/HT/AS.6/F.HT Audit(BOAB). D.No./2017 dated 28.01.2017 issued by the fourth respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and against the Clause 33 of the TNERC - Grid Connectivity and Intra State Open Access Regulation 2014 and Tariff orders of the first respondent made in T.P.No.1 of 2013 dated 20.06.2013 and SMT No.9 of

2014 dated 11.12.2014 and the Electricity Act, 2003.

2.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner industry is a Textile manufacturing industry and is producing cotton fabric mostly for exports. Since the respondents board was not able to provide sufficient power, the petitioner was compelled to purchase power from third party sources to achieve the production target. Accordingly, the petitioner made use of such power procured after paying the applicable charges to the respondents under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. In the months of April/2013 and May/2013, the petitioner has purchased power from third party viz., Cauvery Power Generation Chennai (P) Ltd., and the quantum of power purchased from such third party sources was deducted from the petitioner's total industrial consumption and the balance energy and demand consumed from the respondent alone was billed in the respective monthly CC bills and the petitioner has paid the same without any default. While so, the fourth respondent issued a demand notice dated 14.12.2016 and 28.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.30,04,382/- towards outage units for the period from 04/2013 to

5/2013. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fourth respondent claimed audit short fall for the consumption of outage units for the period between 04/2013 to 05/2013 belatedly, that too after a lapse of 3 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 04/2013 and 05/13 and therefore, the fourth 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 whe