Judgment : 1. The unsuccessful defendants in both the Courts are the appellants. 2. The case in brief is as follows; The Plaintiff Theatre was commenced on 16.9.1962. The plaintiff has secured two service connections from the Electricity Department, bearing Nos.350 and 396. The plaintiff was allowed to use 8,470 Watts at a time. The plaintiff has also remitted the electricity charges, On 8.9.1979, the plaintiff was called upon to remit a sum of Rs. 2,212.20 for the period from 1.3.1978 to 30.4.1979, since it was transferred from Tariff No. 5 to Tariff, No.2. The plaintiff has sent a reply on 1.10.1979 and thereafter he was informed that they have exceeded the sanctioned load for more than 50 per cent, in burning of lights. On 29.12.1983 also the second defendant sent a communication calling upon, the plaintiff to pay the amount, for which a reply was sent on 27.4.1983, On 5.3.1979 the Junior Engineer of the Electricity Department has not inspected the Service connections, Now on the ground of short assessment for the period, of 1988 to 1972. a sum of Rs. 672.25 was also claimed. The defendant also threatened to disconnect the electric supply. On 9.6.1988 the plaintiff also sent a communication, pointing out that the claim was barred by time. The Defendant sent a reply enclosing the Audit report also. According to the report, for the period from 15.9.1962 to February 1968 a sum of Rs.5,365.25 is payable. According to the terms and conditions of supply, only for the period of one year, the claim can be made and not beyond that. On 21.10,1983 also the plaintiff was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 17,940.40 for the period from March, 1964 to April 1969. The plaintiffs have not used more than 50 per cent of the sanctioned load for the purpose of lighting and, as such, the entire calculation made by the defendant is not proper and correct and therefore, sought the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. 3. The defendants resisted the suit by stating that on 5.3.1979, the premises was inspected by the electricity Officials and they have noticed the violation of the Tariff condition and also excessive use of more than 50 per cent of the sanctioned load. Hence the calculation of the amount was made at Tariff No 2. 3. The defendants resisted the suit by stating that on 5.3.1979, the premises was inspected by the electricity Officials and they have noticed the violation of the Tariff condition and also excessive use of more than 50 per cent of the sanctioned load. Hence the calculation of the amount was made at Tariff No 2. The plaintiff was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.2,212.20 was a particular period and another communication sent calling upon them to pay a further amount in a different communication for the subsequent period. The defendant had sent reminders calling upon the plaintiffs to pay the amount and the copy of the Auditing report was also supplied at request, inspite of which, the plaintiff did not pay the amount. The defendant has got power to collect the amount by virtue of the Electricity Act, 1979. The claim is also in time. 4. The trial Court has framed five issues in O.S.No.19 of 1986 and seven issues in O.S.No.129 of 1986, and both the suits were tried together. The evidence recorded in O.S.No.19 of 1986 was treated as evidence in the other suit, Ex.A1 to Ex.A-21 were marked on the side of the plaintiff and P.W.1 was examined. On the side of the defendants D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Ex. B.1 to Ex. B.5 were marked. The trial Court decreed both the suits and aggrieved against this, the defendants preferred A.S.No.274 and A.S.No.275 of 1987 on the file of the District court, Cuddalore and the learned Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal and aggrieved against this, the defendants have come forward with the present Second Appeals. 5. At the time of Admissions of these Second Appeals, the following substantial questions of law were framed; (I) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in holding that the power of disconnection conferred under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 cannot be exercised for the claim of revision, of bills, for the period exceeding three years, that is, after the expiry of the period of limitation? (ii) Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the case reported in AIR 1979 Bombay 364 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case? 6. (ii) Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the case reported in AIR 1979 Bombay 364 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case? 6. It is admitted that the two suits relate to the plaintiff Theatre relating to Electricity Service connection No.350 and 396, The Electricity Department sent a communication to the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.2,212.20. In view of the change of tariff from Tariff No,5 to Tariff No.2. The defendants also sent a communication calling upon the plaintiff to pay a sum or Rs. 17,940 towards short assessment for the period of March 1964 to April 1979. It is stated that the Officer of the Electricity Department inspected the service connection in the plaintiff Theatre on 5.3.1979 and subsequently there was exchange of communication between the parties. Ex.B.2 dated 6.3.1979 is the communication sent to the plaintiff relating to the inspection made on 5.3.1979. Admittedly, the officer who inspected the Service connection could not be examined, because he was no more. Ex.A-11 and Ex.A-16 are the communications sent by the department to the plaintiff company claiming the amounts towards short assessment and excessive use, more than the sanctioned load in the lighting, It is admitted that the parties have entered into a contract, having terms and conditions of supply. Clause-33 of the contract also disclose that power has been given to the Electricity Department to reassess the amounts even giving retrospective effect. 7. The learned counsel for the defendants/appellants mainly contended that the Courts below erred in holding that the board is not empowered to reverse the Bills. The findings of the Courts below that the claim is time barred is also not correct. They have raised substantial question of law based upon Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, and the claim of limitation cannot be made use of by the consumer relating to the threatened disconnection for the nonpayment of the amounts by the departments. 8. It is seen from Ex.A. 11 that they covered the amounts relating to Ex.A.8 and Ex.A-10, for the period of March 1968 to October 1972 to the amount of Rs. 5,665.25, The fact that the Officer of the Electricity Department made an inspection of the Service Connection on 5.3.1979 have been positively proved. 8. It is seen from Ex.A. 11 that they covered the amounts relating to Ex.A.8 and Ex.A-10, for the period of March 1968 to October 1972 to the amount of Rs. 5,665.25, The fact that the Officer of the Electricity Department made an inspection of the Service Connection on 5.3.1979 have been positively proved. Then, it is a clear finding by the Courts below that the inspection on 5.3.1979 is possible and there was no necessity for the Officials to forge the record. In fact, the inspection particulars has been duly communicated to the consumer also. Due to malpractice of electrical energy, a sum of Rs.2,212.20 was also claimed for the period 1.3.1978 to 30.4.1979. D.W.1 clearly stated in the course of evidence that out of the total connecting load, only 50 per cent can be used for lighting purpose, but the inspection disclosed that more than 50 per cent of the total connecting load has been used by the plaintiff. It is only under this circumstance, the charges were calculated based upon Tariff No.2 and valid reasons are also given. 9. Ex.A-16 also is asimilar demand made by the department alleging that the plaintiff Theatre had used more than 50 per cent of the sanctioned load for lighting purpose, during the period from March 1964 to April 1979, and as such the quantum of a sum of Rs.7,940.40, is claimed. However, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the claim ought to have been made by the department within three years from the date when the amount was due. In short, it is stated that the department is not entitled to claim the amounts giving retrospective effect and under the circumstance, the plaintiff is entitled to claim the relief of declaration and also the relief of permanent injunction restraining the department from disconnecting the electric supply. The main question that has to be considered is whether the department is entitled to claim the amount giving retrospective effect or the claim can be made only for a period of three years. It has also to be found out whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the relief of declaration and injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electric supply. 10. It is seen from the records that the demand made on 21.05.1983 relates to the period March, 1968 to October, 1972. It has also to be found out whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the relief of declaration and injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electric supply. 10. It is seen from the records that the demand made on 21.05.1983 relates to the period March, 1968 to October, 1972. Similarly, the demand made on 20.10.1983 relates to the period 1.3.1978 to 30.4.1979. It is only under this circumstance, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that for the period 1968-1972 and for the period 1978-79, the demand was made for the first time only in the year 1983 and as such the claim is barred by time. It is pertinent to state that only if the electricity department comes forward with the suits to claim the amount, then only the period of limitation can be made applicable and the department is not entitled to claim beyond three years. But in the present case, the disconnection notice was given to the plaintiff company and immediately without remitting the amount, the plaintiff has come forward with two suits claiming the aforesaid reliefs. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a Judgment reported in Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd.. v. A.P. State Electricity Board and Others , 1998 (4) SCC 470 wherein it is held that, Section 49 does not Require the Board to enter into a contract with individual consumer. Even in the absence of an individual contract, the terms and conditions of Supply notified by the Board will be applicable to the consumer and he will be bound by them. Probably in order to avoid any possible plea by the consumer that he had no knowledge of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, agreements in writing were entered into with each consumer. That will not make the terms purely Contractual. The Board in performance of a statutory duty supplied energy on certain specific terms and conditions framed in exercise of a statutory power Undoubtedly the terms and conditions are statutory in character and they cannot be said to be purely contractual. This decision is applicable to the case on hand and i[t can be concluded that the terms and conditions entered into between the parties are statutory in character and as such it is enforceable and hence prima facie it is clear that the defendants are entitled to collect the amount even retrospectively. 12. This decision is applicable to the case on hand and i[t can be concluded that the terms and conditions entered into between the parties are statutory in character and as such it is enforceable and hence prima facie it is clear that the defendants are entitled to collect the amount even retrospectively. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on a Judgment reported in Raniammal v. T.N.E.B. Kumbakonam 2000 (1) CTC 181 for the proposition as to whether the limitation Act is applicable, if the consumer fails to pay the electricity charges. It has been held that Limitation Act will not deter electricity Board from exercising its power of disconnection under Section 20 of the Limitation Act. 13. Reliance is also placed upon the Judgment reported in M/s Swastic Industries v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board , JT 1997 (2) S.C. 328 for the proposition that, the mere fact that there is a right given to the Board to file the suit and the limitation has been prescribed to file the suit, it does not take away the right conferred on the Board under Section 24 to make demand for payment of the charges and on neglecting to pay the same. They have the power to discontinue the supply or cutoff the supply, as the case may be, when the consumer neglects to pay the charges. the intendment appears to be that the obligation are mutual. 14. It has been held in the Judgment reported in S.M. Amarchand Sowcar v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board , 1999 (1) CTC 289 that; This decision also applicable to the case of the appellant. Electricity Board’s right to recover dues is independent right. The Consumer cannot contend in suit filed questioning disconnection that recovery of arrears is barred by limitation and hence order of disconnection, is illegal. The right to disconnect supply to consumer is always available and not circumscribed by any limitation. Such right is not dependent on existence of Board’s right to recover its dues by filing suit. Question of limitation would arise only when Board files suit to recover arrears of electricity charges. Suit for declaration that order of disconnection of electricity does not involve right to property or right of legal character -Falls outside scope of Section 34 - Courts cannot grant futile decree or order Dismissal of suit upheld in Second Appeal. Question of limitation would arise only when Board files suit to recover arrears of electricity charges. Suit for declaration that order of disconnection of electricity does not involve right to property or right of legal character -Falls outside scope of Section 34 - Courts cannot grant futile decree or order Dismissal of suit upheld in Second Appeal. The principle in this decision is also applicable to the case of the appellants 15. It has been held in the Judgment reported in Asmath Begum v. The Superintending Engineer. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Mettur , 1997 (3) CTC 527 that, the period of limitation prescribed in Limitation Act is not applicable to Electricity Board for invoking power under Section 20 of the Act. The word “Due” occuring in Section 24 would take within its fold monies payable eventhough their recovery may be barred by law of limitation. Law of limitation is applicable to only governs action instituted before competent Civil Court or before statutory authority. Law of limitation does not have the effect of destroying right secured und er Electricity Act. Right to recover arrears due to Electricity Board cannot be lost by any period of limitation stipulated in Limitation Act. Provisions contained in Section 24 is special provision to safeguard interest of Electricity Board. Amount due to Board could not be prevented from being recovered by having recourse to Section -24 of the Electricity Act. Injunction cannot be granted to supersede or to run against specific mandate of statute. Trial Court committed grave error in decreeing suit thereby preventing Board from invoking statutory provisions enacted by Parliament conferring specific right to Board. This case is applicable to the case on hand in all fours. 16. The learned counsel for. the respondent had relied on the Judgment reported in Virdhachalam Pillai v. Chaldean Syrian Bank , AIR 1964 S.C. 1425 and it relates to debts incurred by the father and sons, pious obligation for debts incurred by father, and this decision is not applicable to the case on hand. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon a Judgment reported in Turner Morrison and Co., Ltd. v. Hungerford, Investment Trust Ltd. 1972 (3) SCR 711 relating to the case under Company Law and applicability to Incorporated Companies Act under the Limitation Act. This decision is also not applicable to the case on hand. 18. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon a Judgment reported in Turner Morrison and Co., Ltd. v. Hungerford, Investment Trust Ltd. 1972 (3) SCR 711 relating to the case under Company Law and applicability to Incorporated Companies Act under the Limitation Act. This decision is also not applicable to the case on hand. 18. It is therefore, evidently clear from the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants that the question of limitation cannot be used by the plaintiff as a hit to prevent any electricity department from having recourse to disconnect the service supply for nonpayment of the charges. The terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties are not disputed. As adverted to, the terms and conditions are statutory in character and therefore, enforceable under law and hence there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the electricity department is entitled to collect the amounts giving retrospective effect. The principles enunciated in the decision cited supra, clearly established that the plaintiff cannot file a suit claiming the relief of injunction to run against specific mandate of the statute. It has been clearly stated that the law of limitation does not have the effect of destroying the right secured by the defendants under the Electricity Act. It is also made clear that the right to recover arrears to the Electricity Board cannot be lost by any period of limitation stipulated in the Limitation Act. The reason is obvious that the provision contained in Section 24 of the Limitation Act is a special provision to safeguard the interest on the Electricity, and as such the amount due to the Board could not be prevented from being recovered by having recourse to Section 24 of the Electricity Act, Now the plaintiff after receiving the communication of threatening the disconnection of the Electricity Supply, has rushed to the Court and obtained interim orders. It is unfortunate that the plaintiff’s company had also not deposited the amounts. Now, the plaintiff’s company cannot take shelter under the Limitation Act, and prevent the defendants from taking recourse to the Provisions under the Electricity Act and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to either declaration or permanent injunction. It is unfortunate that the plaintiff’s company had also not deposited the amounts. Now, the plaintiff’s company cannot take shelter under the Limitation Act, and prevent the defendants from taking recourse to the Provisions under the Electricity Act and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to either declaration or permanent injunction. It is unfortunate that both the Courts below have been misled in ap preciating the legal position and based upon the Limitation Act, the plaintiff was granted the relief. Both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the various provisions under the Electricity Act and also the settled principles laid down by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. Hence, I am of the view that as the Courts below have come to a wrong conclusion based on an erroneous application of law, the findings are perverse and as such interference is called for. 19. For the reasons state above, both the second appeals are allowed. The judgment and decree of the Courts below are set aside and the suits are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The plaintiffs is directed to deposit the amounts within a period of eight weeks.