In LPA-1509-2018 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Under Electricity Act, 2003, there is bar for raising demand beyond period of 2 years: P&H HC
Justices G.S. Sandhawalia & Harpreet Kaur Jeewan [01-02-2023]

Read Order: Baldeep Singh v. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, February 2, 2023: While observing that the demand was on account of an electricity bill which was raised in 2015 and was for the period from September 2009 to October 2015, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that Electricity Act, 2003 would be applicable.

“The provisions of the said Act would go on to show that there is a bar for raising a demand beyond the period of 2 years”, the Bench of Justices G.S. Sandhawalia and Harpreet Kaur Jeewan held. 

It was the appellant’s case that his electric meter was replaced in September 2009 following which the consumption remained consistent. After more than 6 years, on account of the checking done in 2015, the billing was enhanced on account of the fact that the multiplier factor of MF=1 was applied instead of MF=2. It was further submitted that the fault lay on the part of the concerned officers and if they had pointed out any mistake at the time of recording monthly readings, the same could have been sorted out. 

Challenge in the writ petition by the appellant was to the decision of Ombudsman, Electricity, Punjab wherein the petition filed challenging the order of the Grievances Redressal Forum which had upheld the decision of the Zonal Dispute Settlement Committee charging the amount of Rs. 23,96,680/- from the period September 2009 to October 2015.

The Writ petition was filed seeking the benefit of provisions of Section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 (‘1910 Act’) which was controverted by filing a reply that the provisions of the 2003 Act were applicable and Section 56 (2) provided that there was a limitation of two years when the sum first became due and therefore, the date of the first bill and demand notice was the date when the demand becomes due.

The Single Judge, while dealing with Clause 93.1 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, came to the conclusion that the issue involved was on account of a complaint of wrong application of multiplying factor and no case for interference was called for in the impugned order. It was, accordingly, noticed that against the demand of Rs. 24,94,336/- which was for a period of more than 6 years by way of overhauling accounts, the deposit of Rs. 9,60,000/- had already been done, resultantly, the balance amount was directed to be paid. 

The present LPA was filed by the consumer against the judgment of the Single Judge wherein the only benefit granted was regarding the interest element which was levied regarding the electricity bill, which was held to be waived off. The appellant was permitted to deposit the balance amount in the first installment of 1/3rd amount and the remaining in equal five installments within 4 months. 

At the very outset, the Court observed that the demand was on account of a bill which was raised in 2015 and which was for the period from September 2009 to October 2015, therefore, the 2003 Act would be applicable. “The provisions of the said Act would go on to show that there is a bar for raising a demand beyond the period of 2 years”, the Bench observed. 

Further, the Bench made reference to a Supreme Court case wherein the issue was whether the period of limitation of 2 years as provided under Section 56 (2) would be applicable to the additional or supplementary demand. 

It was held by the Apex Court that the period of limitation of 2 years would commence from the date when the electricity charge first became due and it restricts the right of the licensee company to disconnect electricity supply due to non-payment of dues by the consumer, unless such sum had been shown continuously to be recoverable as arrears of electricity supplied in the bills raised for the past period.

In light of the above, the Court held that on account of the delay in rectification, the respondent-Corporation is stopped from taking any coercive method of recovery of the amount beyond October 2013 and if it has to do so, it would only have to take remedy available in law for recovery of the additional amount, but cannot disconnect the supply of electricity. 

Resultantly, in view of the above, the Bench was of the considered opinion,

“... reliance upon Section 26 of the 1910 Act and the judgment which were rendered in pursuance of the said statutory provisions would not be applicable, in view of the fact that the 2003 Act had come into force and, therefore, the provisions of Section 56 (2) of the 2003 Act which would be applicable.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed to the extent that the recovery further beyond October 2013 was not permissible and shall be done by taking recourse, if permissible in accordance with the law, but the disconnection cannot be done of the appellant on account of the arrears which were outstanding as per the bill on the basis of checking report conducted in 2015 by raising demand from September 2009 to October 2015. 

“Any such recovery shall also be done after adjusting the sum of Rs. 9,60,000/- which already stands paid out of the Rs. 24,94,336/- claimed”, the Bench held.