JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner-company was sanctioned 935 KW load by the respondent for its industrial unit, which was closed in the month of March, 2013. Till March, 2013, the petitioner had arrears of electricity for an amount of Rs. 76,84,561/-. It is stated by the petitioner that the power connection of the petitioner was also disconnected by the respondents somewhere in the month March, 2013, which is duly substantiated by the communication dated 09.03.2018 of the respondent No.2 to the petitioner pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2. Further as per communication dated 09.03.2018, an amount of Rs. 3,48,15,624/- was outstanding in the name of petitioner as arrears till ending January, 2018. While the petitioner continued to be in arrears, the Government of J&K issued Govt. Order No. 273-FD of 2018 dated 05.06.2018 by virtue of which sanction was accorded to waiver of 100 percent of interest and penalty on all the power arrears as on 31.12.2017 owed to the Govt. by the industrialists/hoteliers and tourist resort owners, registered with the department of Industries and Commerce, J&K/Department of Tourism, J&K respectively provided that the outstanding payment of power dues as on 31.03.2018 was made in a maximum of three equal instalments by or before 30.09.2018. The petitioner in order to avail the benefit of amnesty scheme as mentioned above, floated by the Govt. by virtue of communication dated 06.07.2018 intimated the respondent No. 2 of its willingness to avail the benefit under the amnesty scheme and also requested the respondent No. 2 to communicate the total arrears payable under the scheme to the petitioner. The said communication was received by the respondent No. 2 on 06.09.2018. Thereafter vide another Govt. Order No. 254-PDD of 2018 dated 24.12.2018, the Finance Department extended the benefit of Govt. Order No. 273-FD of 2018 dated 05.06.2018 till 27 January 2019 with the modification that the outstanding dues as on 31.03.2018 shall be paid in one instalment instead of three instalments. Thereafter, the petitioner vide representation dated 16.03.2019 requested the respondents to extend the last date for availing the benefit of Govt. Order dated 05.06.2018 as the respondents had not intimated the petitioner the dues payable by him, in response to its earlier communication dated 06.07.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner vide representation dated 16.03.2019 requested the respondents to extend the last date for availing the benefit of Govt. Order dated 05.06.2018 as the respondents had not intimated the petitioner the dues payable by him, in response to its earlier communication dated 06.07.2018. Thereafter, when the said representation evoked no response from the respondents, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 27.01.2021 to the respondent No. 2 to convey the arrears of power bill to the petitioner within a period of 15 days, so that the petitioner could deposit the same. In response to the legal notice dated 27.01.2021, the respondent No. 3 informed the respondent No. 2 that as the amnesty scheme was not in vogue, therefore, the benefit of said scheme could not be extended to the petitioner and the outstanding liability of the petitioner was Rs. 5,74,24,642/-. The petitioner was accordingly intimated by the respondent No. 2. 2. By placing these facts before this Court, the petitioner has sought quashing of the bills dated 09.12.2020, 09.01.2021, 08.02.2021, 08.03.2021 and 11.07.2021 inasmuch as the same are illegal, arbitrary against the provisions contained in the Electricity Act, Rules as well as Regulations framed thereunder and has also sought indulgence of this Court for directing the respondents to grant benefit of amnesty scheme for Industrial, Hoteliers, Tourist Resort owners, Small Scale Industries by waiving off interest, penalty and surcharge on the power bills to the petitioner and for further directing the respondents to calculate the arrears to be paid by the petitioner till March 2013 after granting benefit of amnesty scheme. 3. The respondents have filed the response stating therein that as per available records of the Sub-division, the unit of the petitioner was closed in the month of March 2013 and zero units bills have been charged to the unit holder after February 2013. As per the assessment/billing statement, the outstanding amount as on March 2013 was Rs. 76,84,561/-. As the load of the unit holder was 935 KW, fixed demand charges were levied as per the tariff in vogue in each bill after March, 2013. Besides, interest at the rate of 1.5 percent has also been charged as per the tariff in vogue. It is also stated that the amnesty scheme was given wide publicity and all the consumers had to approach the office of the concerned Sub-division for availing the amnesty scheme. Besides, interest at the rate of 1.5 percent has also been charged as per the tariff in vogue. It is also stated that the amnesty scheme was given wide publicity and all the consumers had to approach the office of the concerned Sub-division for availing the amnesty scheme. The exact amnesty amount was communicated to the sub-division by the IT wing and was further communicated to the consumers who approached the sub-divisional office for availing the benefits of the scheme. It is further stated that AEE Electric Sub-Division II vide communication dated 14.07.2023 has intimated that he had telephonically spoken to MD/Owner of the petitioner-company for clearing all the dues under the amnesty scheme. The MD/Owner of the petitioner concern attended the office of the AEE Electric Sub-Division-II on the last working day of the end of the Scheme i.e. 27.11.2020 and was informed the exact amount which was to be deposited to avail the benefits of amnesty scheme, but he expressed his inability to arrange the requisite funds. It is also stated by the respondents that the total outstanding of the petitioner as on August, 2022 is Rs. 7,25,22,939.41/- 4. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that in terms of Section 50 of the J&K Electricity Act, the respondents were under obligation to issue notice of 15 days to the petitioner to clear the dues and thereafter the respondents could have disconnected the electric connection of the petitioner. He has further submitted that it is the admitted case that the electricity connection was disconnected in the month of March, 2013, therefore, once the power supply of the petitioner was disconnected and continued to be so for 180 days, the agreement between the petitioner and the respondents for supply of power stood terminated on the expiry of 15 days, as such, the petitioner cannot be charged beyond period of 180 days. In order to substantiate his submissions, Mr. Sharma has placed reliance upon clause 8.7 of the J&K State Electricity Supply Code, 2011 issued by then J&K SERC. 5. Per contra, Mr. In order to substantiate his submissions, Mr. Sharma has placed reliance upon clause 8.7 of the J&K State Electricity Supply Code, 2011 issued by then J&K SERC. 5. Per contra, Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that though the electricity connection was disconnected in the month of March, 2013, but the petitioner was in arrears and after the supply was disconnected, the petitioner was levied only with fixed demand charges and no charges were levied for consuming the power. Besides, interest at the rate of 1.5 percent has also been charged as per the tariff in vogue. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. Section 50 of the J&K Electricity Act 2010 provides as under : “Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days’ notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee of the generating company through which the electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled .......” 8. It is evident from the record that no such notice as envisaged under section 50 of the Electricity Act, was issued to the petitioner. Be that as it may, this is admitted case of the parties that power was disconnected in the month of March, 2013. It is also evident from the record that vide communication dated 06.07.2018 duly received by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner expressed its willingness to avail the benefit of amnesty scheme and also requested the respondent No. 2 to calculate and communicate the arrears payable by the petitioner under the amnesty scheme. There is nothing on record to show that the communication dated 06.07.2018 was ever responded to by the respondents. Thereafter, the Govt. order No. 273-FD of 2018 dated 05.06.2018 was extended till 27.01.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent No. 2 for extending the benefit of Govt. There is nothing on record to show that the communication dated 06.07.2018 was ever responded to by the respondents. Thereafter, the Govt. order No. 273-FD of 2018 dated 05.06.2018 was extended till 27.01.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent No. 2 for extending the benefit of Govt. Order dated 05.06.2018 to the petitioner and finally legal notice was also sent to the respondents to convey the petitioner the arrears of power bill. The said communication was responded to by the respondent No. 2 on the basis of the feedback provided by the respondent No. 3 in which it was stated that the amnesty scheme was reintroduced by the Govt. in March 2020 vide Govt. Order No. 51-PDD of 2020 dated 02.03.2020 so that all those who could not avail the benefit of the scheme for the first time could avail the benefit of the scheme for the second time. It was also stated that when the scheme was reintroduced, the order read “Waiver of 100 percent surcharge and penalty (if any) in favour of the consumers (Domestic/Commercial) payable as on 31.12.2019 subject to payment of principal amount and surcharge in three instalments. The scheme was later extended up to 30.11.2020. It was further stated in the reply that MD/owner of the petitioner was telephonically informed for clearing all the dues under the amnesty scheme. The MD/Owner of the petitioner company attended the office of the AEE Electric Sub-Division-II on the last working day of the end of the Scheme i.e. 27.11.2020 and was informed the exact amount which was to be deposited to avail the benefits of amnesty scheme, but he expressed his inability to arrange the requisite funds to avail the scheme. It is admitted by the respondents that till March 2013 the total amount payable by the petitioner was Rs. 76,84,561/-. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner had been approaching the respondents for availing the benefits under the amnesty scheme. The respondents in their reply have not denied the averments made in Para-9 of the petition that the petitioner by way of communication dated 06.07.2018 showed his willingness to avail the benefits of the amnesty scheme. Rather, it is stated by the respondents that on the last working day of end of the Scheme i.e. 27.11.2020, the M.D of the petitioner expressed his inability to arrange the requisite funds. Rather, it is stated by the respondents that on the last working day of end of the Scheme i.e. 27.11.2020, the M.D of the petitioner expressed his inability to arrange the requisite funds. The respondents are absolutely silent as to why communication dated 06.07.2018 was not responded to by them. From the response filed by the respondents, it is evident that the amnesty scheme was also reintroduced by the Govt. in March 2020 vide Govt. Order No. 51 PDD of 2020 dated 02.03.2020, which was later on extended up to 30.11.2020. 9. The Clause A8 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Electricity Supply Code, 2011 issued by the Jammu and Kashmir State Electricity Regulatory Commission deals with disconnection and reconnection. Further, Sub-Clause 8.7 of the Clause A8 deals with the permanent disconnection of supply, which is extracted as under: “8.7 The supply shall be disconnected permanently in following cases: (a) On the termination of the agreement. (b) If the cause for which the supply was temporarily disconnected is not removed within the notice period. Provided that if the service of the consumer remains continuously disconnected for 180 days, not being a temporary disconnection upon request of the consumer, the Agreement shall be deemed to be terminated on the expiry of 15 days or after the expiry of the initial period of agreement whichever is later without prejudice to the rights of the licensee or the consumer under the Act for recovery of any amount due under the Agreement. 10. The sub-clause 8.7 of Clause A8, provides for disconnection of supply permanently on the happening of two contingencies i.e. termination of agreement or if the cause for which the supply was temporarily disconnected is not removed within the notice period. 11. Proviso to the Clause 8.7 provides that if the service of the consumer remains continuously disconnected for 180 days, not being a temporary disconnection upon request of the consumer, the agreement shall be deemed to be terminated on the expiry of 15 days or after the initial period of agreement whichever is later. 11. Proviso to the Clause 8.7 provides that if the service of the consumer remains continuously disconnected for 180 days, not being a temporary disconnection upon request of the consumer, the agreement shall be deemed to be terminated on the expiry of 15 days or after the initial period of agreement whichever is later. The expression “initial period of agreement” finds mention in clause 8.11 of the Code (Supra) and the same is extracted as under: “8.11 The consumer may terminate the Agreement after expiry of the initial period of Agreement of 1 year in case of LT connections and 2 years in case of HT/EHT connections, after giving 30 days’ notice to the Licensee. However if the Agreement is to be terminated before expiry of the initial period of Agreement, the consumer shall be liable to pay charges as specified below: (a) The consumer shall be liable to pay the demand/fixed charges (if no minimum charges are prescribed for that category) for a period of 6 months or the period by which the total duration of the Agreement falls short of 1 year, whichever is lower; (b) HT/EHT consumers shall also bear the estimated expenditure on removal of the apparatus and service line. The Licensee shall issue a demand note to the consumer in writing, under acknowledgment, within 10 working days of receipt of request.” 12. The initial period of agreement is a period for which the consumer cannot request for disconnection of supply. In any case, the initial period of agreement cannot stretch beyond the period of two years. The respondents have placed on record the assessment sheet and the perusal of the same reveals that it carries the billing statement from the year 2008. It is admitted by the respondents that service of the petitioner was disconnected in March 2013 and as per the proviso as mentioned above, the agreement between the petitioner and the respondents for supply of power came to be automatically terminated. The petitioner in terms of the above clause is under obligation to pay the fixed charges for the period of 180 days only and not thereafter, because the agreement stood automatically terminated after the expiry 15 days from 180 days with effect from March, 2013. Once the agreement stood terminated, the petitioner cannot be charged beyond the period prescribed by the proviso to sub-clause 8.7 and sub-clause 8.11. Once the agreement stood terminated, the petitioner cannot be charged beyond the period prescribed by the proviso to sub-clause 8.7 and sub-clause 8.11. The respondents have levied the fixed charges to the petitioner beyond 180 days after the disconnection which could not have been done by the respondents. 13. The respondents have not placed any documentary evidence on record in response to the communication dated 06.07.2018 that the petitioner was intimated the arrears payable by the petitioner under the amnesty scheme launched by the Govt. Though the respondents have stated that when the amnesty scheme was reintroduced by the Govt. in March 2020 and was extended till 30.11.2020, the MD/owner of the petitioner concern attended the office of respondent No. 3 but expressed his inability to raise the requisite funds for availing the benefit of scheme. Had the respondents placed any documentary evidence on record to demonstrate that the petitioner in response to communication dated 06.07.2018 was intimated the arrears calculated in terms of amnesty scheme issued vide order No. 273-FD of 2018 dated 05.06.2018, this Court would have never shown indulgence. As the respondents had not intimated the arrears payable by the petitioner pursuant to his communication dated 06.07.2018, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of Amnesty Scheme. More so, the bills issued to the petitioner are not in consonance with the J&K State Electricity Supply Code and as such they are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner admittedly owed an amount of Rs. 76,84,561/- to the respondents till March, 2013 when the supply was disconnected. The respondents can charge the fixed charges for the period of 180 days after March, 2013 in terms of clauses 8.7 and 8.11 of the Code (Supra). 14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of in terms of the following directions: i. The bills dated 09.12.2020, 09.01.2021, 08.02.2021, 08.03.2021 and 11.07.2021 are quashed. ii. The respondents shall calculate the fixed charges for the period of 180 days after March, 2013 and shall intimate the petitioner total amount payable by the petitioner, which shall include Rs. 76,84,561/- within the period of 30 days from today. iii. After the petitioner is intimated the arrears (Rs. 76,84,561/- the arrears so determined by the respondents for the period of 180 days), the petitioner shall pay the abovementioned amount to the respondents with in the period of 30 days from such intimation. iv. 76,84,561/- within the period of 30 days from today. iii. After the petitioner is intimated the arrears (Rs. 76,84,561/- the arrears so determined by the respondents for the period of 180 days), the petitioner shall pay the abovementioned amount to the respondents with in the period of 30 days from such intimation. iv. The petitioner be granted the benefit of the Govt. Order No. 273-FD of 2018 dated 05.06.2018 only if the petitioner liquidates the amount within the period mentioned above, failing which, the petitioner shall be liable to pay the penalty etc. under Rules.