AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—By a common decision WP(C) No. 3637/1990 and WP(C) No. 16784/2004 have been disposed of by a learned Single Judge. WP(C) No. 3637/1990 has been allowed following the law declared by a learned Single Judge in the decision reported as Jor Bagh Association (Regd) and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . But WP(C) No. 16784/2004 has been dismissed holding that unless charges levied by L&DO were not paid, in view of the law declared in the decisions reported as Mrs. Madhu Garg and Another Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd., and BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Ltd and Another, , the question of the demand being barred by limitation would not arise.
Whereas Union of India is aggrieved by the impugned decision insofar WP(C) No. 3637/1990 is allowed, the writ petitioner is aggrieved insofar WP(C) No. 16784/2004 has been dismissed.
As regards reliance placed by the learned Single Judge in the decisions reported as Mrs. Madhu Garg and Another Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd., and BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Ltd and Another, , suffice would it be to state that the learned Single Judge has failed to note the difference between statutory demands and non-statutory demands. Whereas demands which are statutory do not become barred by limitation; non-statutory demands attract the Law of Limitation. With respect to demands towards electricity dues, as held by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported as Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Paramount Polymers Pvt. Ltd., and Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Hanuman Rice Mills and Others, , one has to apply the law carefully. Only if the electricity demand is statutory, be it under a statute or on a condition of supply which is statutory in character alone then can it be said that demands towards electricity dues are not barred by limitation for purposes of recovery.
While cross fertilizing principles of law in different domains, Judges have to be careful and ought to note the precise legal dispute which was adjudicated upon and it would be unfair to the litigating citizen if cross fertilization is blurred.
Demands on account of misuse or unauthorized constructions, unless shown to be statutory in character would attract the law declared by the Supreme Court with respect to the recovery as per the decisions noted by us herein above.
As regards the decision of the learned Single Judge in Jor Bagh''s case (supra), the same stand overruled by a Division Bench in a decision pronounced February 28, 2012 UOI & Anr. vs. Jor Bagh Association (Regd) & Ors., but with a clarification as set forth in para 80(F) of the opinion of the Division Bench.
The impugned decision has also referred to a decision by a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2005 (1) AD Del. 634 UOI vs. Vinay Kumar Aggarwal, which decision has been overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in the decision pronounced on July 10, 2012.
Under the circumstances, both appeals are allowed. Impugned order dated August 09, 2011 is set aside. WP(C) No. 3637/1990 and WP(C) No. 16784/2004 are restored for fresh adjudication by the learned Single Judge in light of our observations made herein above and the decision of the Division Bench in LPA No. 415/2005 decided on February 28, 2012 as also the decision of the Full Bench in LPA No. 1125/2007 decided on July 10, 2012.
The two writ petitions would be listed for directions on January 08, 2013.
It is hoped and expected that the learned Single Judge would decide the two writ petitions as expeditiously as possible. No costs.