ORDER Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB). Case of the petitioner is that he is the proprietor of M/s. Indomech Engineers, an industrial unit set up for the purpose of assembling Diesel Gensets under an agreement with M/s. Greaves Limited. The industrial unit of the petitioner is situated at Rani Industrial Area. The shed for carrying out the industrial activities belongs to the Assam Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), which was allotted to the petitioner. As electricity was required to operate the industrial unit, the petitioner approached the Respondent No. 3 for providing electricity connection to his industrial unit. No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Corporation was also obtained and submitted. As electricity connection was not provided to the petitioner despite lapse of considerable time, the petitioner approached the Respondent No. 3 to enquire about the matter. At this stage, the petitioner was furnished with a bill dated 13.11.2003 for an amount of Rs. 21,613.86 issued by the Respondent No. 3 to one M/s. Leatheran, which was the previous occupier of the shed. The petitioner was informed that he had to first clear the aforesaid amount and then only the power supply would be provided to him. When the petitioner approached the higher authority complaining that providing electricity connection to his industrial unit could not be made contingent on payment of arrear dues of others, the respondents refused to provide electricity connection to the petitioner by making it clear that for providing electricity connection the petitioner had to first clear the outstanding liability. From the detail statement issued by the Respondent No. 3, the petitioner could gather that the dues of M/s. Leatheran, the previous occupier, was for the period up-to 7.8.1999. 2. A.S.E.B. had framed the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1998 in exercise of power conferred under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Clause 3(B)(iii) provided that any person desiring to have electricity to a premise in respect of which a power supply agreement was terminated due to default in payment of electricity dues, shall be treated as a fresh consumer and that the ASEB reserved the right to collect the outstanding arrears from the person before connection was given. 3. Clause 3(B)(iii) provided that any person desiring to have electricity to a premise in respect of which a power supply agreement was terminated due to default in payment of electricity dues, shall be treated as a fresh consumer and that the ASEB reserved the right to collect the outstanding arrears from the person before connection was given. 3. Petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the aforesaid clause as well as the bill dated 13.11.2003 and also for a direction to the respondents to provide electricity connection to his industrial unit. 4. This Court by order dated 6.1.2004, while admitting the writ petition, took the view that the petitioner cannot be saddled with any such responsibility for any arrear dues of another person and to that effect, clause 3(B)(iii) of the Terms and Conditions of Supply would appear to be of doubtful legal validity. By the said order, the respondents were directed to provide electricity connection to the premises of the petitioner without insisting on clearance of arrear dues in respect of the premises in question. 5. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed their counter affidavit recently on 17.8.2012. Stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner had submitted an affidavit dated 14.10.2003 while seeking electricity connection, wherein he had stated that he would be bound to pay the charges of entire service connection from the nearest distribution line and that in respect of outstanding arrear bills with liability pending against the premises, he was ready to settle any or all bills, if any, in this regard. The respondents have stated that they had issued bill dated 13.11.2003 for an amount of Rs. 21,613.00 to the petitioner which was the outstanding dues of M/s. Leatheran, the previous occupier of the shed. Issuance of the said bill has been justified in terms of Clause 3(B) (iii) of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1998 and the petitioner's commitment made in the affidavit. The respondents have stated that pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the electricity connection was provided to the petitioner on 31.1.2004. It is, however, stated that the petitioner's industry is not operating at present and due to non-payment of dues of Rs. 10,958/-, electricity connection to the petitioner's premises was disconnected on 8.12.2009. 6. Mr. The respondents have stated that pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the electricity connection was provided to the petitioner on 31.1.2004. It is, however, stated that the petitioner's industry is not operating at present and due to non-payment of dues of Rs. 10,958/-, electricity connection to the petitioner's premises was disconnected on 8.12.2009. 6. Mr. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though a number of grounds have been taken in the writ petition, the petitioner would confine the challenge only to the point of limitation. He submits that the impugned bill dated 13.11.2003 pertains to the period up to 7.8.1999. He submits that the demand was required to be made within one month from the date when it fell due whereafter the period of limitation would run. Referring to a number of judgments of this Court, the learned counsel submits that the claim of the respondents has become time barred and therefore the impugned bill should be set aside and quashed. 7. Learned Standing Counsel, A.S.E.B., on the other hand, submits that the respondents had rightly issued the bill and in view of the provisions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1998, the respondents were within their right to demand payment of previous dues of the premises as a condition precedent for providing electricity connection. 8. Submissions made have been considered. 9. The bill in question, as noticed above, pertains to the period up-to 7.8.1999 and would, therefore, be covered by the previous Electricity Act, 1910. This Court in a number of decisions has consistently held that A.S.E.B. is hot a State and hence, the period of limitation for realization of dues payable to A.S.E.B. is 3 years. It has been held that the period of limitation for recovery of dues of ASEB shall be 3 years and Section 112 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes limitation period of 30 years in respect of a State, will not be applicable. It has also been held that to realize dues from a consumer, the period of 3 years should be counted from the date when the payment became due. Under Clauses 17 and 18 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1998, the bills are to be presented to the consumers every month for such periodical intervention of time as the ASEB may fix giving them 15 days time for payment. Under Clauses 17 and 18 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1998, the bills are to be presented to the consumers every month for such periodical intervention of time as the ASEB may fix giving them 15 days time for payment. If payment is not made within the 15 days period, the period of limitation would commence, which has been held by this Court to be of 3 years. 10. Admittedly, the dues covered by the bill dated 13.11.2003 is for the period up-to 7.8.1999. The bill therefore was clearly time barred. That being the position, the impugned bill dated 13.11.2003 being beyond limitation period is adjudged to be illegal which is hereby set aside and quashed. 11. Writ petition accordingly stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed