ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the action of the proposed disconnection of the petitioner on the basis of the arrears of certain electricity dues. It is the case of the petitioner that though the dues are arising out of a particular consumer number, however, the disconnection is sought for three other consumer numbers. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in arrears of electricity dues to an industrial unit of the petitioner and that the petitioner had after the issuance of bill for consumption of electricity challenged the same before the Appellate Committee and by reasoned orders, the Appellate Committee had reduced the bill amount. It is submitted that after the decision of the Appellate Committee on 25.11.2004, the supplementary bills came to be issued dated 18.12.2004 and 10.01.2005. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the action on part of the respondent in attaching the bills of a separate consumer number with the three consumer numbers which are for the residential purpose is an action not in consonance with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Act'). 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the Notice dated 30.04.2018 and contended that the Notice is issued under Section 56 and if the date on which the supplementary bills have been issued is to be considered then the Notice issued is far beyond the period of two years which are prescribed under Section 56 of the Act. It is further submitted that the proviso to Section 56 clearly contemplates that disconnection cannot be effected for the dues which are falling for the payment two years prior to the proposed action. It is submitted that the disconnection under Section 56 can be undertaken only within a period of two years of the Bill amount having fallen due and therefore, in the instant case when the amount had fallen due in the year 2005, the disconnection cannot take place after the year 2007. It is also submitted that in the proviso, it is clearly mentioned that the amount that has fallen due and payable has to be reflected in the subsequent bills and only in that situation, the action under Section 56 can be taken by the Electric Company. It is also submitted that in the proviso, it is clearly mentioned that the amount that has fallen due and payable has to be reflected in the subsequent bills and only in that situation, the action under Section 56 can be taken by the Electric Company. In the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that subsequent bills which are drawn on the residential premises under a separate consumer number, such amount is shown as due and payable. 4. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent Electric Company submitted that the action of the Electric Company is based on the decree drawn against the petitioner. It is submitted that after the decision of the Appellate Committee, the Company had issued supplementary bills as per the directions of the Appellate Committee and thereafter, the petitioner had approached the Electric Company for making payment of the electricity dues in installments. The Electric Company had accepted such a proposal permitting the petitioner to pay the installments. However, after making payment only for a period of one year once again the petitioner had stopped making payment and for that reason, the Electric Company had to file a Civil Suit before the Civil Court at Vadodara. This came to be decreed in favour of the Electric Company by a final order dated 25.11.2017 and it is after that, the impugned notice dated 30.04.2018 came to be issued. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner has challenged the action on the ground that for the connection against which the action is contemplated is in the electricity connection against which the dues have not fallen. In that connection, learned Advocate has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. & Other v. Kantaben Jayantilal Radadia in Letters Patent Appeal No.1212/2013 in Special Civil Application No.11400/2010 wherein the Division Bench has taken a view that where the Consumer is the same though the electric connection of the consumer may be different, recovery can be effected from such another consumer number. 6. Learned Advocate for the Electric Company has lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in arrears since long and has been responsible for electricity theft, the Appellate Committee though has reduced the bill but has confirmed the issue of theft of electricity by the petitioner. 6. Learned Advocate for the Electric Company has lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in arrears since long and has been responsible for electricity theft, the Appellate Committee though has reduced the bill but has confirmed the issue of theft of electricity by the petitioner. In such a situation, a lenient view may not be taken in favour of the petitioner. 7. As against this, in rejoinder, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondents have resorted to a particular proceedings against two options available, it is not open for the Electric Company to change the track. It is submitted that in the year 2008, the action was available for the Electric Company to invoke Section 56 and the Electric Company has still decided to file a Suit for recovery and so once the Electric Company has filed a Suit for recovery , it cannot revert back to Section 56 of the Act. Learned Advocate in support of his contention of argument of dues having fallen for the first time as appearing in Section 56 of the Act, has relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation v. Yatish Sharma and Others reported in 2007 (3) Mh.L.J. 315. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have perused the documents on record. It appears that the petitioner was responsible for commission of theft for which bills were issued for recovery which was the subject matter of challenge by way of an Appeal before the Appellate Committee in Appeal Nos.31/32 and 32/32, wherein decisions were given by the Appellate Committee to reduce the respective bills of each of the consumer number. It is submitted that after the order of the Appellate Committee, the supplementary bills dated 18.12.2004 and 10.01.2005 respectively came to be issued. The Appellate Committee order and the supplementary bill have been produced today on record. 9. From the record, it appears that the electric company had filed a Special Civil Suit No.447/2008 where the cause of action is nonpayment of electricity dues by the petitioner even after issuance of the supplementary bill/s and that the installment which was permitted to the petitioner were also not paid after 31.05.2006. 9. From the record, it appears that the electric company had filed a Special Civil Suit No.447/2008 where the cause of action is nonpayment of electricity dues by the petitioner even after issuance of the supplementary bill/s and that the installment which was permitted to the petitioner were also not paid after 31.05.2006. The Civil Court has proceeded to issue final order by its judgment dated 25.11.2017 wherein allowing the Suit it had declared that the Electric Company is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.5,27,761.10 @ 11% interest per annum from the date of institution of Suit till the recovery is effected. It appears that it on the basis of such a decree drawn, that the Notice dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure P-5) came to be issued. The Notice issued is asking the respondent to pay the amount as per the decree within a period of seven days failing which the Electric Company would be entitled to initiate appropriate action. Thereafter, a Notice is issued on the same date to include the dues payable against the three connections which are undisputedly running in the name of the petitioner. Considering the ratio laid down by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1212/2013 in Special Civil Application No.11400/2010, the action of the Electric Company in issuance of such notice in the opinion of this Court is justified. This Court in the aforesaid judgment while interpreting the word 'any' in Section 56 has held as under :- “15. Applying the aforesaid principles of the Apex Court, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the connection running in the name of the respondent would be covered under the word “any” which occurs in Section 56 of the Act, 2003 with reference to electric supply line and hence, in the event of default of payment against electricity dues from the husband of the respondent, Section 56 has been rightly invoked against the respondent.” 10. Insofar as the submission of learned Advocate in invoking Section 56 of the Act by contending that the amount due and payable within a period of two years can only be a cause of action to invoke Section 56 of the Act, in the opinion of the Court would not hold good as the decree which is drawn on the basis of the judgment dated 25.11.2017 in Special Civil Suit No.447/2008 by the Electric Company. Hence, even if the dues were the amount payable upon the issuance of supplementary bill still insofar as Section 56 is concerned, the amount due and payable for which Section 56 can be invoked, the date on which the decree is drawn, i.e. 25.11.2017 would be relevant and therefore, the invoking of Section 56 of the Act in the present case is justified. 11. In support of his submission about the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 56 of the Act, learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of CESC Limited v. Shiva Glass Company Limited & Others reported in 2011 SCC Online Cal 3860 wherein the Court has observed as under :- “We are of the opinion that the learned single Judge was justified relying on the aforesaid decisions with regard to non-service of the bills and thereafter proceeded to deal with the effect of non-service of such bills with the protection from disconnection as contemplated under Section 56(2) of the said Act. As we have mentioned above, the said Sub-section (2) of Section 56 is a new provision which did not find place in Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and this is a provisions creating a restriction and/or limitation for recovery of any dues by the licensee or the generating company.” However, the Division Bench in the later part of the judgment has proceeded to hold with regard to bar under Section 56(2) of the Act as under :- “the said bar under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be stretched too far to deny the licensee from the realizing such amounts on account of delayed payment surcharge either by instituting a civil proceeding or by any other proceeding. If the same is otherwise permissible under the law and in such proceeding it is always open for the consumer to question initiation of such action on the grounds that may be available to them under the law. If the same is otherwise permissible under the law and in such proceeding it is always open for the consumer to question initiation of such action on the grounds that may be available to them under the law. However, the dues on the ground of delayed payment surcharge as reflected in the bill for 2006 cannot be recovered on the pain of disconnection as contemplated in Section 56 of the Act and we agree with the reasoning of the learned single Judge on this point and uphold the order of the learned single Judge by which the notice of disconnection dated July, 2006 has been passed.” 12. From this, it clearly appears that that there is no Bar for recovery of the amount due and payable even beyond the period of two years. However, such question will not fall in the facts of the present case, more particularly when the amount according to the Court has fallen due and payable to invoke Section 56 or Section 56(2), only upon the drawing of the decree as per the final order in the year 2017, for which the Notices which are impugned are issued in the year 2018. 13. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 10.05.2018 which directs maintenance of status-quo as on the date against the deposition of 25% of the decreetal amount. It is submitted that 25% of the decreetal amount was deposited by the petitioner with this Court. While dismissing the petition, it would be appropriate to permit the respondent – Electric Company to withdraw such amount deposited and the same may be appropriated into the account of the petitioner. 14. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made for interference and the petition therefore deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged. 15. At this juncture, learned Advocate for the petitioner requests for stay of this order and continuing of the order of status-quo for a period of four weeks. Considering the fact that the issue pertains to disconnecting of electricity connection of residential premises, it would be appropriate to suspend the operation of this order for a period of four (4) weeks from today.