O R D E R

Heard Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, learned counsel for Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Abul Kalam, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2.The petitioner has challenged a High Tension invoice dated 04.07.2019 pertaining to HTSC.No.31 relating to the period August 2015. The impugned invoice seeks to raise a demand after a period of four years when the time of consumption. The primary argument that is raised relates to the bar of limitation.

3.Admittedly, there is a difference of 3,68,939 units generated by the WTG as recorded by the authorities and as logged by the petitioner. The aforesaid difference had escaped the attention of TANGEDCO and no due was raised in this regard.

4.The error was brought to the notice of the authorities on 24.10.2015 by the petitioner under communication dated 24.10.2015 received on 26.10.2015 by the respondents. The communication states that with respect to the subject matter, which is the WTG 'generation units difference', as per records, the WTG generated units for the month of August was 3,34,483. In the monthly HT current consumption bill, the WTG unit taken into account was a sum of a Rs.7,03,422/-. There was thus a difference of 3,68,939 units, difference called for verification and reconciliation.

5. Thus, the fact that the petitioner had been granted excess credit in regard to 3,68,939 units has been noticed by the petitioner and duly brought to the notice of the respondents as early as on 26.10.2015. Despite this, no action was initiated by the respondents to reverse the credit. The subsequent current consumption bill (CC bill) did not make an adjustment, as specifically sought for by the petitioner on 24.10.2015.

6. For the first time, on 02.04.2019, the authorities write to the petitioner proposing to demand a sum of Rs.23,79,973/- as a supplemental claim on account of short collection of energy charges, putting it to notice that the demand in this regard would be included in the current consumption bill for the ensuing month and should be remitted by the petitioner, in time.

7.The authorities also make it clear under communication of letter dated

15.04.2019 that this supplementary demand has been made only pursuant to a BOAB Audit for the period 2016-2018 conducted by the Internal Audit Department. Audit slip dated 21.03.2019 reads as follows:

'HT SC No 31 & 39, M/S NEEDLE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) Pvt Ltd.

During the Course of review of HT bill file along with wind mill statement in respect of the above consumer it is seen that the Peak hour Reading relating to WF NO.63 M/s.NEEDLE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT LTD) has been incorrectly entered in the windmill statement i.e. 3161.60 instead of 2985.43 in the month of 08/2015 as cnfirmed vide Lr.No:EE/WFP/AEE/MRT/Udt/F.WF SC.No.C63/D.No.553/15, Dt.12.08.2015 and resulted in excess adjustment of wind energy units which is detailed in the working sheet.

Therefore the short collection of Energy charges of Rs.20,38,876/- may be arrangement to be collected from the above consumer and the fact intimated to Audit.'

8.The petitioner objected to the proposed demand on account of the elapse of time, but ultimately an order came to be passed on 08.05.2019, rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner on 26.04.2019 and confirming the supplementary demand. Hence, this writ petition.

9.Reliance is placed by the the petitioner upon the provisions of Section

56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short 'Act') which deals with disconnection of supply in default of payment. The provision is extracted hereunder:

'56.Disconnection of supply in default of payment.- (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days' notice in writing, to