AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri vishal dixit on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Kapil Mishra learned Counsel for the respondents.
Supplementary counter affidavit filed taken on record.
Petitioner obtained electricity connection to run its industry in the year 1997. The industry was functional only for three months and on 31.10.1997 it was closed and electricity disconnected. However, petitioner was held liable to pay Minimum Consumption Guarantee for six months. Along with counter affidavit, a letter dated 2.5.2000 has been filed, which shows that the total outstanding dues against the petitioner as assessed by the Executive Engineer was Rs. 51,25,572/ -and late payment to the tune of Rs. 44,66,447/-. The total outstanding dues from the own admission of respondents as revealed by letter dated 2.5.2000 comes to Rs. 95,86,016. In response to notice petitioner pays Rs. 23,00000/- and Rs. 20,00000/- deposited as security has been forfeited.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that total outstanding dues comes only to Rs. 51,00000/- and odd. It has been further submitted that the regulatory commission had issued a circular dated 5.2.2010 to settle the disputes under One Time Settlement Scheme. In response to circular the petitioner had moved an application dated 23.3.2010 to avail the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme. In response to application moved by the petitioner the respondents had sent a letter dated 31.3.2010 (Annexure-5) in which additional amount of Rs. 1, 92,82, 000/- has been added.
The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the additional amount could not have been added which seems to be incorrect and false in view of letter dated 2.5.2000, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure CA 11 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.
Apart from above, the petitioner''s counsel had relied upon Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which provides that, to quote:
(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 arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.
The provision of Central Act has been adopted in U.P. State Electricity Supply Code, 2005 containing the same provision with addition of explanation, to quote as under:
Explanation--The date from which such charges becomes ''first due'' needs to be correctly interpreted. If as a result of regular meter reading/inspection of installation of consumer, such charges/penalties levied as per this Code or tariff schedule, shall become first due counted from the due date of payment of such a bill, and such bill shall be provided to the consumer not later than two billing cycle for that category of consumer.
Prima-facie, from the reading of the statutory provisions referred by the petitioner''s counsel it appears that after communication vide letter dated 2.5.2000 the respondents should have taken appropriate action within a period of two years thereafter they have no right to proceed further in the matter. However, otherwise, also once outstanding dues has been notified Rs. 9586016/- in odd in view of letter dated 2.5.2000 then addition of certain amount at belated stage i.e. 31.10.2010 prima facie seems to be violative of statutory provision. The question raised by the petitioner''s counsel requires consideration. It also appears that unit was closed in the year 1997 after running for about three or four months and electricity was disconnected then addition of additional amount at belated stage after statutory period seems to be arbitrary exercise of power.
Accordingly, we admit the writ petition subject to condition that petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 60,00000/- (sixty lacs) with the respondents within a period of one month. In case, the amount is deposited, the further recovery proceeding shall remain stayed. Petitioner may file supplementary rejoinder affidavit to the supplementary counter affidavit filed today within a week.
List for peremptorily hearing in the week commencing 24.5.2010.