JUDGMENT 1. The appeal arises out of an order of May 16, 2017 by which a demand for late payment surcharge by the distribution company was found to be illegal and contrary to Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The bills raised by the distribution company for supply of electricity to two meters standing in the names of the writ petitioners stood disconnected in December, 2012 for non- payment. Upon payment of the entire principal sum outstanding, the electricity supply was restored in December, 2015. Bills for supply of electricity were thereafter issued from January, 2016 onwards and the consumer paid the same. However, two distinct bills were raised on account of late payment surcharge, both dated January 4, 2016, claming delayed payment surcharge to the extent of Rs.87,540/- for one meter and about Rs.1,15,300/- is for the other meter. It is the undisputed position that such bills for late payment surcharge remain unpaid. 3. Notices were issued for disconnection of the electricity supply sometime later in January, 2016. In one of the notices, the bill period was shown to be January, 2014 and, in the other, there was no reference to any bill period. Both notices demanded the payment of the outstanding amounts of Rs.1,15,300/- and Rs.87,540/- to be made by February 4, 2016. 4. According to the writ petitioners, the distribution company ought to have indicated the late payment surcharge at the time that the writ petitioners obtained reconnection of the electricity supply. The writ petitioners suggest that in the distribution company not indicating the late payment surcharge at the relevant point of time, they are deemed to have waived the same upon restoring the electricity by accepting the principal amount due on account of the previous bills raised. 5. It is the further contention of the writ petitioners that, in any event, no money was recoverable on account of the two bills for late payment surcharge in view of Section 56(2) of the Act and the notices for disconnection were patently illegal. 6. Section 56(2) of the Act mandates as follows: '56. 5. It is the further contention of the writ petitioners that, in any event, no money was recoverable on account of the two bills for late payment surcharge in view of Section 56(2) of the Act and the notices for disconnection were patently illegal. 6. Section 56(2) of the Act mandates as follows: '56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment.- (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 electricity.' The amount referred to in Section 56(1) of the Act covers any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity 'due from the consumer to a licensee or the generating company in respect of the supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to the consumer.' 7. The writ petitioners refer to the petition filed before the writ court and the reference thereto to the bills raised by the distribution company after disconnection was effected in December, 2012. Copies of some of the bills raised by the distribution company even after disconnection was effected were appended to the writ petition. 8. The writ petitioners assert that since the bills continued to be raised by the distribution company notwithstanding the disconnection of the supply to the two relevant meters, the late payment surcharge component ought to have been reflected in such subsequent bills for such amount to be recoverable in view of the embargo under Section 56(2) of the Act. At any rate, the writ petitioners submit that no disconnection can be effected of any supply on account of alleged non-payment of late payment surcharge. 9. In such connection, the writ petitioners refer to a Division Bench judgment reported at 2012 (5) CHN 213 (CESC Limited vs Shiva Glass Company Limited) where the contention of the licensee that the late payment surcharge could be calculated only after the principal amount was deposited, was repelled. 10. The licensee refers first to the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2013 and the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) (Amendment) Regulations, 2013. 10. The licensee refers first to the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2013 and the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) (Amendment) Regulations, 2013. In addition, the original Tariff Regulations of 2011 are also placed. 11. In the Supply Regulations of 2013, there is a provision for the deemed termination of the agreement between the licensee and a consumer if the power supply to any consumer remains disconnected continuously for a period of 180 days where the disconnection was effected in compliance with any of the provisions of the Act or the Regulations framed thereunder. As per the Tariff Regulations of 2011, clause 4.14 provides for late payment surcharge at a particular rate. The Tariff Amendment Regulations of 2013 have lowered the rates. It would, therefore, be the rates under the amended regulations that would be applicable in the present case, according to the licensee. 12. The licensee contends that when, in terms of the Supply Regulations of 2013, the relationship is snapped between the licensee and the consumer after a certain period of time after the supply has been disconnected, there is no question of any bill being raised and the remedy of the licensee is to try and recover the dues in accordance with law. The licensee says that Section 56(2) of the Act would operate in a situation where the electricity supply has not yet been disconnected since the power to recover in terms of such provision is coupled with the power to disconnect the supply upon the failure of the consumer to pay the due charges. 13. There is no doubt that late payment surcharge has to be paid for the delayed payment of an amount. Such late payment surcharge is in the form of interest and is generally regarded as compensation for the late payment of any amount. In accordance with its authority under the Act of 2003, the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission has fixed the charges payable for late payment. In equity, a person who has left bills unpaid for two years cannot be seen or heard to complain of a demand for payment of interest or late payment surcharge being levied for such delayed payment. 14. Section 56(2) of the Act envisages a situation where bills are raised continually or on a monthly basis by the licensee on the consumer. 14. Section 56(2) of the Act envisages a situation where bills are raised continually or on a monthly basis by the licensee on the consumer. By virtue of the snapping of the relationship after 180 days of the disconnection of supply, there is no need or use for a licensee to raise any further bill on its erstwhile consumer. Section 56(2) or the embargo under its first limb cannot have any manner of application in such a scenario. Section 56(2) and the prohibition thereunder would apply to a situation where there is continuous supply of electricity and bills are periodically raised so that a consumer is not taken by surprise more than two years after an amount may have become due for such amount to be claimed. 15. Section 56(2) of the Act mandates that no sum due from any consumer in respect of the supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity 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. The operative words in the provision are 'unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable'. Thus, the condition precedent for any sum due from consumer in respect of the supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to such consumer, to be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due is the amount being 'shown continuously as recoverable'. In other words, bills raised on the consumer must continuously show the sum due for such sum to be recovered after a period of two years from when it first became due. 16. To begin with, the lumpsum amount which is due on account of late payment surcharge cannot be determined without there being a due date and an actual payment date. Even if such aspect is disregarded and a part of the late payment surcharge is perceived to have become due at an earlier point of time after the expiry of the permitted period to make the payment therefor, such amount ought to have been indicated in the bills for it to be recoverable after a period of two years. 17. Even if such aspect is disregarded and a part of the late payment surcharge is perceived to have become due at an earlier point of time after the expiry of the permitted period to make the payment therefor, such amount ought to have been indicated in the bills for it to be recoverable after a period of two years. 17. There is no doubt that a substantial part of the late payment surcharge which has been demanded in the present case accrued at a point of time more than two years prior to the bills dated January 4, 2016 being raised. The issue that arises is whether, in view of the embargo under Section 56(2) of the Act, it has to be determined as to which part of the late payment charge that was demanded by the bills of January 4, 2016 accrued at a point of time two years prior to the date of such bills; for only such part would then not be recoverable in view of the provision and the remainder would be unaffected since the remainder of the late payment of surcharge may not have accrued more than two years prior to the date of the two bills issued on January 4, 2016. 18. However, the embargo under Section 56(2) of the Act, notwithstanding the non obstante clause contained therein, does not cover every sum which had become due two years prior to the demand therefor being raised. Indeed, there is no difficulty in any sum being recoverable if it became due two years prior to the date of demand as long as such sum is shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supply. The prohibition is not unqualified; and it is in the qualification that the answer to the issue involved herein may be found. 19. In a sense, the words 'unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied' carve out an exception to the general rule enunciated in the provision that 'no sum due from any consumer' in respect of the supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity 'shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due'. 20. 20. In a scenario where the relationship of licensee and consumer is severed by virtue of the regulations framed under the Act, there is no question of any bill being raised after the severance of the relationship. If no bill can be raised, or need be raised, by the licensee on the erstwhile consumer after the relationship has ceased, there cannot be any means by which any sum due may be 'shown continuously as recoverable'. The act of showing, continuously or otherwise, has, per force, to be by way of the bills raised by the licensee on the consumer. When no bills are required to be raised, the act of showing a sum to be due continuously becomes impossible. Thus, Section 56(2) has, necessarily, to be confined to a situation where the relationship between a licensee and the consumer has not been severed and the licensee raises bills periodically on the consumer for supply of electricity and, in such bills, the licensee details the particulars of other sums that may be due. 21. At the time that the judgment in Shiva Glass Company Limited was passed in 2011, the Supply Regulations of 2013 had not come into place. Whether or not there were previous regulations which governed the field is not reflected in the reported judgment. It is, in such circumstances, that the dictum in such judgment may not be binding or be applicable in the present case. At any rate, the proposition for which the judgment is cited is that the late payment surcharge accumulates periodically and does not accrue only upon the payment being made. Even if such legal proposition is accepted, it would not detract from the fact that once the relationship between a licensee and a consumer is severed and no bills are required to be raised on the erstwhile consumer by the licensee, there is no possible manner in which any sum due from the erstwhile consumer to the licensee may be 'shown continuously as recoverable'. Indeed, it must be appreciated that the words 'shown' and 'continuously' are inseparable in the context. 22. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment and order impugned do not appeal and are set aside. It defies logic and good sense that a consumer may choose to pay a bill belatedly and then deny payment of interest for the delayed payment upon obtaining reconnection of the supply. 22. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment and order impugned do not appeal and are set aside. It defies logic and good sense that a consumer may choose to pay a bill belatedly and then deny payment of interest for the delayed payment upon obtaining reconnection of the supply. It is also evident that Section 56(2) of the Act covers a situation where the relationship of a consumer and a licensee is not snapped and does not contemplate a situation where the erstwhile consumer has obtained reconnection after several years. 23. FMA 1963 of 2018 and CAN 10984 of 2017 are disposed of. 24. The judgment and order impugned dated May 16, 2017 are set aside. The writ petitioners are afforded 15 days time from the date hereof to pay off the amounts demanded by the notices dated January 19, 2016 together with interest on such sums as indicated in the bills at the rate of 6% per annum till February 29, 2020. In default, the amounts will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum till payment and the licensee will also be entitled to disconnect the supply. 25. The writ petitioners will also pay the costs of the present proceedings assessed at Rs.10,000/-. Such payment has to be made along with the payment for the late payment surcharge. 26. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.