JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Seeking quashing of order dated 23.07.2014 whereby, objection to electricity bills dated 13.05.2014 and 04.06.2014 were rejected, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner M/s. Sheo Shakti Cement Industries is engaged in manufacturing of cement. It has an industrial unit at Hazaribagh for which it was granted electric connection with contract demand of 1067 KVA. On 21.01.2011, a new CTPT Metering Unit was installed though, the previous CTPT was neither burnt nor the petitioner had made a complaint. The replaced CTPT got burnt in the month February, 2014 however, it was replaced on 31.03.2014. The petitioner though, has been paying electric charges regularly, received bill dated 13.05.2014 for Rs. 1,87,82,208/- for the period February, 2011 to March, 2014. The petitioner filed an application on 25.05.2014 before the Chief Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board however, a supplementary bill dated 04.06.2014 for Rs. 1,80,45,968/- was raised. The Electricity Board filed its reply before the General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer and vide order dated 23.07.2015, the objection of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner filed petitions dated 11.06.2014 and 23.06.2014 for sending the burnt CTPT for testing, the respondent-authority did not advert to the said issue. For the first time in the proceeding before the General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, the respondent-Board took a plea of Multiplying Factor however, the respondent-authority has not dealt with this issue also. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-17, which is a downloaded information on “understanding the multiplier” and submits that though the billing multiplier and the circuit multiplier are available on record, the meter multiplier has not been disclosed by the respondents and therefore, the actual Multiplying Factor cannot be calculated. It is contended that in view of bar under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the respondent-Board cannot realise the amount raised in the supplementary bill because it was time-barred. 5. Percontra, Mr. It is contended that in view of bar under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the respondent-Board cannot realise the amount raised in the supplementary bill because it was time-barred. 5. Percontra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that in view of Regulation 26 of the Guidelines for Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers and Electricity Ombudsman (Regulation 2011), if the grievance of the consumer is not redressed, the consumer is required to approach the Commission. It is submitted that the issue raised by the petitioner involves serious disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceeding. It is submitted that the Installation Reports dated 27.01.2011 and 31.03.2014 would disclose that the Multiplying Factor (MF) for CTPT Metering Unit installed at petitioner's premises was MF 2000 whereas, due to mistake energy bills were raised for MF 1200 only. The said error in the energy bills were for the period between 24.01.2011 to 31.03.2014 therefore, a supplementary bill was raised for recovery of the said amount. It is submitted that at the time of installation of new CTPT Metering Unit, a report was prepared which was duly signed by the petitioner. The report clearly discloses Multiplying Factor and other necessary details and therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner that the meter should have been sent for testing is untenable. It is submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of tempering nor it was a defective meter and therefore, CTPT Metering Unit which was replaced on 27.01.2011 did not require testing at the 3rd party installation. 6. I find that in its objection dated 24.05.2014, the petitioner took a plea that neither any detail was given nor the basis for raising supplementary bill dated 13.05.2014 was disclosed. The said supplementary bill was raised without issuing show-cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to it. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Hazaribagh filed statement of facts asserting that the supplementary bill was raised on account of shortfall in Multiplying Factor (MF). The previous bills for the period February, 2011 to March, 2014 were raised on the basis of Multiplying Factor 1200 whereas, the CTPT installed at the petitioner's premises was carrying Multiplying Factor 2000. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Hazaribagh filed statement of facts asserting that the supplementary bill was raised on account of shortfall in Multiplying Factor (MF). The previous bills for the period February, 2011 to March, 2014 were raised on the basis of Multiplying Factor 1200 whereas, the CTPT installed at the petitioner's premises was carrying Multiplying Factor 2000. A perusal of the Installation Report of CTPT Metering Unit dated 27.01.2011 discloses details of metering unit such as make, capacity, type, date of manufacture etc. The Installation Report contains the details of old CTPT Metering Unit which was replaced on 27.01.2011. The old CTPT Metering Unit had CT Ratio 60/5A and PT ratio 11,000/110V whereas, the new CTPT Metering Unit has CT Ratio 100/5A and PT ratio 11000/110 V. The new CTPT Metering Unit which was installed on 27.01.2011 was with MF 2000. The Installation Report dated 31.03.2014 replacing the CTPT Metering Unit which was installed on 27.01.2011 discloses similar details of the removed/damaged Metering Unit. Though, Multiplying Factor of the CTPT Metering Unit installed on 27.01.2011 is not mentioned in the Installation Report dated 31.03.2014 however, it records CT ratio 100/5A and PT ratio 11 KV/110V which is equivalent to 11000/110V. In these facts, it cannot be disputed that the CTPT Metering Unit installed on 27.01.2011 had Multiplying Factor of 2000. In the above facts, the contention that the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer respondent no. 4 did not deal with the prayer for sending the CTPT Metering Unit for testing for ascertaining the Multiplying Factor, must fail. The submission made on the basis of the downloaded information from Internet that the Meter Multiplier is not disclosed and therefore, the CTPT Metering Unit should have sent for testing, is liable to be rejected. The document vide Annexure 17 filed by the petitioner discloses that Meter Multiplier is shown on the face of the meter and the billing multiplier is indicated in the invoice. As noticed above Multiplier Factor has been mentioned in the Meter Installation Report dated 27.01.2011. It is not in dispute that the petitioner itself informed the respondent-Nigam that the meter is burnt and thus, the meter multiplier which is written on the fact of the meter now cannot be detected. As noticed above Multiplier Factor has been mentioned in the Meter Installation Report dated 27.01.2011. It is not in dispute that the petitioner itself informed the respondent-Nigam that the meter is burnt and thus, the meter multiplier which is written on the fact of the meter now cannot be detected. In view of the technical specifications and the Multiplying Factor mentioned in the Installation Report dated 27.01.2011, no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner, though the respondents should have mentioned the MF shortfall in the supplementary bills. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bills dated 13.05.2014 and 04.06.2014 are barred under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is submitted that the respondent no. 4 rejected the said plea merely observing that in view of decision in "M/s Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board & others" 2008 (1) JCR 149 (Jhr.), M/s Sheo Shakti Cement Industries is liable to pay the bill for Rs. 1,80,45,968/-. Trying to distinguish the decision in “M/s Tata Steel Ltd.”, it is contended that the bills raised by the respondent Nigam between the period 27.01.2011 and 31.03.2014 were all duly paid and therefore, the decision in "M/s Tata Steel Ltd." is not applicable in the present case. In the said case this Court held that the amount becomes "first due" for payment only when the Board raises bill as per the tariff. It is submitted that the entire process is split in 3 stages namely, consumption of electricity, raising of demand and payment of demand. In the present case in the garb of supplementary demand the respondent-Nigam cannot demand payment for electricity consumption for which bills were raised and paid long back. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that no demand can be raised for the first time after a period of 2 years from the date when such demand became "first due". The provision under subsection 2 must be read in the context of subsection 1 of Section 56. Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that no demand can be raised for the first time after a period of 2 years from the date when such demand became "first due". The provision under subsection 2 must be read in the context of subsection 1 of Section 56. Section 56(1) provides that the supply of electricity can be disconnected on 15 days' clear notice in writing, if any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity dues from him to a licensee or generating company in respect to supply, transmission, distribution or billing of electricity to him. Subsection 2 makes it clear that expression "no sum due" in subsection 2 is confined to Section 56 only. Thus, the sum due from the consumer is the amount for charge of electricity which the consumer has neglected to pay. Section 56(2) refers to only such amount which was within the knowledge of the consumer or within the knowledge of the Electricity Board/Nigam. Moreover, it is well settled that a mistake can always be corrected and a mistake in calculation no doubt, can be rectified at a subsequent stage. In the present case, error in raising correct bills occurred due to difference in Multiplying Factor in the old CTPT Metering Unit which was removed and the new CTPT Metering Unit which was installed on 27.01.2011. The contention that the bills for the period between 29.01.2011 to 31.03.2014 were paid by the petitioner and thus, supplementary bill dated 04.06.2014 is barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be accepted. The petitioner has consumed electricity supplied by respondent-Nigam is not in dispute. The Installation Report dated 27.01.2011 discloses the particulars of the CTPT Metering Unit which was installed on 27.01.2011 and those particulars are corroborated by the Installation Report dated 31.01.2014 and therefore, the petitioner cannot avoid payment for the electricity consumed by it. The supplementary bill dated 13.05.2014 as corrected by bill dated 04.06.2014 raised on account of less Multiplying Factor is not barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The supplementary bill dated 13.05.2014 as corrected by bill dated 04.06.2014 raised on account of less Multiplying Factor is not barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of the High Court of Bombay in "Maharastra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited vs. The Electricity Ombudsman 606” (W.P. 10764 of 2011) and submits that noticing the judgment in "H.D. Shourie vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others" AIR 1987 Delhi 219, the Bombay High Court has referred the matter to a larger Bench. It is contended that the decision in "H.D. Shourie case" on which Division Bench of this Court placed reliance has been doubted by the Bombay High Court. I am inclined to accept this contention. The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in "M/s Tata Steel Ltd. Case" is binding on me. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.