Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 57 (GAU)

UCO BANK v. ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.

2025-01-10

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2025
JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent APDCL. 2. The petitioner herein has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court challenging the bill dated 14.03.2019 of an amount of Rs. 5,82,030/- (Rupees Five Lakh Eighty Two Thousand Thirty) as well as the notice dated 04.04.2019. The specific case of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that all along the bills which have been raised by the Respondent APDCL would show that the maximum consumption of units of the petitioner in a month was 2286. However, for the bill period of 31.10.2018 to 31.12.2018, the unit consumption shown was 61238 and on the basis thereof, a bill was generated of an amount of Rs. 5,34,015/- (Rupees Five Lakh Thirty Four Thousand Fifteen). 3. Mr. M. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition the affidavit-in-opposition had been filed wherein the Respondent Authorities have categorically admitted that the meter in question was healthy, and as such, the consumption of the units as have been mentioned of 61238 could not have been there. The learned counsel further submitted that even from the document enclosed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit-in-opposition, it would be seen that the units said to be consumed i.e. 61238 units is for a period of 55 months which is contrary to Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2013. 4. Per contra Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf the Respondent APDCL submitted that there was nothing wrong with the meter. He submitted that upon investigation being carried out by the Office of the Jalukbari Electrical Sub-Division along with the T&C division Wing, a CMRI or actual billing report in the meter in reference for the actual consumption of the meter for the last 5 (five) months was recorded. He further submitted that after thorough checking and examination of the records it was found that a meter reading on 01.10.2018 was recorded as 150119.90 KWH whereas in the energy bill it was shown only 91894 KWH. 5. Mr. He further submitted that after thorough checking and examination of the records it was found that a meter reading on 01.10.2018 was recorded as 150119.90 KWH whereas in the energy bill it was shown only 91894 KWH. 5. Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent APDCL submitted that the consumer was not billed on actual meter consumption and it was done due to either oversight or collection of improper readings by the meter reader. The difference of the consumption of 61238 units have been accumulated and no bill was raised due to non-recording of the actual consumption of units for the previous years and accordingly the Sub Divisionol Engineer, Jalukbari Electrical Sub-Division vide letter dated 29.03.2019 informed the Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Maligaon the total difference of the units which was unbilled due to recording of wrong consumption units shown in the energy bill. 6. As regards the submission pertaining to the application of Section 56 of the Electricity Act 2013, Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent APDCL has submitted that the liability to pay arises on the consumption of the electricity. He submitted that the obligation to pay would arise when the bill is issued by the licensee company quantifying the charges to be paid. The learned Standing Counsel therefore submitted that the bill dated 12.01.2019 which have been impugned in the instant proceeding was issued by the APDCL Authorities quantifying the charges to be paid. The learned Standing Counsel therefore submitted that the electricity charges would therefore become first due only after the bill is issued to the consumer even though the liability to pay may arise on the consumption of the electricity. The learned Standing Counsel further referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Another vs. Rahamatullah Khan @ Rahamjulla, (2020) 4 SCC 650 and placed reliance on paragraphs 6.9, 7, 7.4, 7.5, 8, 9 and 9.1. The learned Standing Counsel placing reliance upon the said paragraphs of the above judgment submitted that Section 56 does not precludes the licensee company from raising a supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period of 2 (two) years. The learned Standing Counsel placing reliance upon the said paragraphs of the above judgment submitted that Section 56 does not precludes the licensee company from raising a supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period of 2 (two) years. It only restricts the licensee company from disconnecting the electricity supply due to non-payment of the dues after the period of limitation of 2 (two) years have expired. He therefore submitted that the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in respect to Section 56 cannot preclude the Respondent APDCL to claim the amount as have been mentioned in the bill dated 12.01.2019. 7. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record. 8. From the materials on record as well as the communication issued by the Chief Manager of the Maligaon Branch of the petitioner dated 23.01.2019, it transpires that the units which have been consumed by the petitioner from the period 25.12.2017 to 31.12.2018 have been mentioned. From the said, it therefore transpires that till 31.10.2018, the maximum units which have been consumed per month was 2286. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that abruptly for the period from 31.10.2018 to 31.12.2018 it has been shown that the units consumed was 61238 and in that regard the electricity bill dated the 12.01.2019 was issued claiming an amount of Rs. 5,34,015/- (Rupees Five Lakh Thirty Four Thousand Fifteen). From the affidavit-in-opposition, it transpires that upon carrying out an investigation on actual consumption of electricity for a period of five months it was found that the meter reading on 01.10.2018 was recorded as 150119.90 KWH, whereas in the energy bill it was shown only as 91894 KWH. It is further mentioned that the consumer was not billed on actual meter consumption and it was done due to either oversight or collection of improper readings by the meter reader. 10. This Court has also duly taken note of the communication dated 29.03.2019 wherein there is an explanation as to how the respondent APDCL Authority had arrived at a conclusion pertaining to consumption of 61238 units. It has been categorically mentioned that the consumption was not for a single month but accumulated over unbilled units of the previous years. 10. This Court has also duly taken note of the communication dated 29.03.2019 wherein there is an explanation as to how the respondent APDCL Authority had arrived at a conclusion pertaining to consumption of 61238 units. It has been categorically mentioned that the consumption was not for a single month but accumulated over unbilled units of the previous years. In that regard, the manner in which the 61238 units consumption was worked out is reproduced herein-below: “Actual Meter Reading as on 28.05.2014 - 8434.00 Actual Meter Reading as on 01.01.2019 - 155418.00 So, for the period 28.05.2014 - 01.01.2019 (i.e. 55 months) consumption would be (155418 - 8434) = 146984 or 2672 units per month. Whereas for the said period, the consumer has only been billed 85746 units or 1559 units/month.” 11. It is further seen that though the affidavit-in-opposition was filed on 20.12.2019, there is no reply filed by the petitioner contradicting the statements which have been made in paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition. This Court is further of the opinion that if the said amount have already been arrived at on the basis of an inquiry being done, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to interfere in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 12. This Court further takes note of the submission made by the petitioner in respect to Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2013. The answer to the said submission is found in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (supra). Paragraph Nos. 6.9, 7, 7.4, 7.5, 8, 9 and 9.1 being relevant are reproduced herein-under: “6.9. The liability to pay arises on the consumption of electricity. The obligation to pay would arise when the bill is issued by the licensee company, quantifying the charges to be paid. Electricity charges would become “first due” only after the bill is issued to the consumer, even though the liability to pay may arise on the consumption of electricity. 7. The next issue is as to whether the period of limitation of two years provided by Section 56(2) of the Act, would be applicable to an additional or supplementary demand. 7.4. Sub-Section (1) of Section 56 confers a staturoty right to the licensee company to disconnect the supply of electricity, if the consumer neglects to pay the electricity dues. 7. The next issue is as to whether the period of limitation of two years provided by Section 56(2) of the Act, would be applicable to an additional or supplementary demand. 7.4. Sub-Section (1) of Section 56 confers a staturoty right to the licensee company to disconnect the supply of electricity, if the consumer neglects to pay the electricity dues. This statutory right is subject to the period of limitation of two years provided by sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act. 7.5 The period of limitation of two years would commence from the date on which the electricity charges became “first due” under Sub-Section (2) of Section 56. This provision restricts the right of the licensee company to disconnect electricity supply die to non-payment of dues by the consumer, unless such sum has been shown continuously to be recoverable as arrears of electricity supplied, in the bills raised for the past period. If the licensee company were to be allowed to disconnect electricity supply after the expiry of the limitation period of two years after the sum became “first due”, it would defeat the object of Section 56(2). 8. Section 56(2), however, does not preclude the licensee company from raising a supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period of two years. It only restricts the right of the licensee to disconnect electricity supply die to non-payment of dues after the period of limitation period of two years has expired, nor does it restrict other modes of recovery which may be initiated by the licensee company for recovery of a supplementary demand. 9. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case, the licensee company raised an additional demand on 18.03.2014 for the period July 2009 to September 2011. The licensee company discovered the mistake of billing under the wrong Tariff Code on 18.03.2014. the limitation period of two years under Section 56(2) had by then already expired. 9.1. Section 56(2) did not preclude the licensee company from raising an additional or supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period under Section 56(2) in the case of a mistake or bona fide error. It did not, however, empower the license company to take recourse to the coercive measure of disconnection of electricity supply, for recovery of the additional demand.” 13. It did not, however, empower the license company to take recourse to the coercive measure of disconnection of electricity supply, for recovery of the additional demand.” 13. From the above quoted paragraphs, it would be therefore seen that the obligation to pay by the consumer would arise when the bill is issued by the licensee company quantifying the charges to be paid. It has categorically mentioned that the electricity charges would become first due only after the bill is issued to the consumer, even though the liability to pay may arise on the consumption of electricity. In the instant case, the electricity bill was issued on 12.01.2019 which would be construed to become the first due by the petitioner when it was issued. It is also seen from a perusal of Section 56(2) that the period of limitation is two years from the date on which the electricity charges became first due. In the instant case, the electricity charges in respect to 61238 units would be construed to be the first due on the issuance of the bill dated 12.01.2019 and as such, in the opinion of this Court, the limitation as prescribed under Section 56(2) would not effect the rights of the APDCL Authorities to realize the said amount. 14. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition. 15. Be that as it may, this Court also duly takes note of that the petitioner is a Public Sector Bank and immediate disconnection of the electricity would cause tremendous hardship. As such, this Court grants 6 (six) months time from the date of the instant judgment to liquidate the said dues pertaining to the bill dated 12.01.2019. While doing so, the previous payments so made on the basis of an interim order shall be duly set off by the Respondent Authorities. 16. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.