JUDGMENT : The Board challenge Ext.P9 order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (South) ('CGRF' for short). The challenge before the CGRF raised by the respondent was with respect to a bill issued on 01.03.2014 for satisfaction of short payment coming to Rs.2,82,957/-. By Ext.P9 order, the CGRF found that the issue is covered by the earlier order of the CGRF at Ext.P5 and, hence, the Board is interdicted from issuing a fresh bill on the same cause of action as agitated earlier and lost. 2. The controversy arose when an inspection was conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) in the petitioner's business premises. The petitioner had been carrying on manufacture of gold coins and lockets and was also involved in hallmarking. The connected load of the petitioner was 27,000 Watts and the Board had provided power connection under LT-IV tariff. The petitioner was enjoying the connection right from 18.09.2008. 3. On 23.02.2013, when APTS conducted the inspection, the hallmarking activities were noticed and hence it was alleged that the petitioner had to be covered under LT-VII A. Admittedly, the issue as to whether the hallmarking activities were to be brought under LT-VII A commercial tariff, was pending before the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC). 4. On the strength of the inspection conducted, Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared and a bill of Rs.6,72,030/- was raised. Ext.P2 order was also passed computing the short assessment amounting to Rs.6,72,030/-. The respondent challenged the same by way of an original petition before the CGRF, in which Ext.P5 order was passed. A reading of the order of the CGRF would indicate that the officials of the Board were negligent before the CGRF in putting forth the contentions of the Board effectively. The CGRF has detailed the various opportunities given and the recalcitrant attitude displayed by the officials of the Board who represented the Board before the CGRF. Ultimately, the CGRF found the short assessment bill of Rs.6,72,030/- dated 23.03.2013 to be illegal and quashed the same. The bills under LT-VII A tariff was directed to be continued, as continued from 23.03.2013, with a rider that the same would depend upon the decision of the KSERC in the issue pending before it. The Board did not challenge the said order. 5. The order of the CGRF was dated 23.05.2015. The bills under LT-VII A tariff was directed to be continued, as continued from 23.03.2013, with a rider that the same would depend upon the decision of the KSERC in the issue pending before it. The Board did not challenge the said order. 5. The order of the CGRF was dated 23.05.2015. Subsequently, the KSERC by notification dated 09.09.2013, based on order in O.P.No.2/2013 dated 30.04.2013 included hallmarking centers under LT-VII A commercial category. The schedule of tariff and terms and conditions for retail supply by the Board as per the notification was made effective from 01.05.2013, as is seen from Ext.P6 notification. 6. The petitioner's activity having been thus covered under LT-VII A tariff, the Board issued a fresh short assessment bill for two years prior to the date of inspection, which was again challenged by the respondent before the CGRF, which resulted in Ext.P9 order. The CGRF found that the fresh bill issued is covered under the demand already set aside by the forum and hence there could be no fresh liability mulcted on the petitioner, which as levied earlier has been already set aside by the CGRF. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that the Board is so entitled to assess the short payment relying on Section 56(2) of the Kerala Electricity Act, 2003, ('Electricity Act' for short). It is also submitted that the CGRF has, in similar cases, permitted the Board to levy the short assessment for the prior two years, as is evidenced from Exts.P10 to P12 orders. 8. Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act is extracted hereunder: "(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 arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity." The aforesaid provision is under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, which has the nominal heading 'Disconnection of supply in default of payment'. While sub section (1) speaks of the various instances where disconnection could be effected, sub section (2) provides for a limitation restraining the Board from making any recovery from any consumer, after the period of two years from the date when such sum becomes first due, unless such sum has been shown continuously as arrears of charges for electricity supplied. It is a clear bar of recovery provided on expiry of the two year period and it does not enable the Board to make recovery for two years prior to an inspection. Sub section (2) of Section 56, hence, cannot be relied upon by the Board to make short assessment for a period prior to which, in this case, even the change of tariff could not be made applicable. 9. The decisions relied of the CGRF is of no consequence, since it has no binding effect and a reading of the same would only indicate that the CGRF in setting aside prior liability had confined the recovery to two years. There is no mention of the provision relied on by the Board in any of these orders. If at all, the order permitting recovery confined to two years prior, can only be seen as an equittable direction passed drawing support from the limitation as provided in sub section (2) of Section 56 of the Electricity Act. The orders of the CGREF cannot also have any binding force in so far as this Court is concerned. 10. In the present case, admittedly, the change of tariff was brought in as of 01.05.2013, as is evidenced from Ext.P9. True, the Board authorities were of the view that hallmarking centers would come under LT-VII A tariff, however, such change could not have been effected unless the KSERC decided on the issue. There was also pending a matter before the KSERC, which had raised the specific issue of inclusion of hallmarking centers under LT-VII A tariff. The decision was arrived at by the KSERC on 30.04.2013 and implemented with effect from 01.05.2013. If at all, the change in tariff could have been made of the petitioner's business only from that date. The short assessment bill issued on such notification, relating it to two years prior to the inspection of the APTS, cannot be sustained. For all the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P9 order. If at all, the change in tariff could have been made of the petitioner's business only from that date. The short assessment bill issued on such notification, relating it to two years prior to the inspection of the APTS, cannot be sustained. For all the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P9 order. The writ petition would stand dismissed. No Costs.