Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Maha Shakti Cold Storage (P) Ltd vs West Bengal State Electricity Board & ... on 21 June, 2016
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
21.06.2016.
rc
W.P. No. 21659(W) of 2006
Maha Shakti Cold Storage (P) Ltd.
-Vs-
West Bengal State Electricity Board & Ors.
Mr. Bidyut Kumar Halder .. For the Petitioner
The petitioner has assailed an order dated September 09, 2006 by which the then
West Bengal State Electricity Board (WBSEB) had purported to demand a sum of Rs. 10,05,
153.00 from the petitioner on the ground of alleged arrear of electricity consumption of for
the period July 19, 1989 to September, 1991 and from October, 1992 to August, 1995.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to section 56(2) of the Electricity
Act, 2003 and has submitted that the Board did not show the alleged outstanding
continuously in the electricity bills raised upon the petitioner. Consequently, the Board is
not entitled to realise the alleged claim which is for a period in excess of two years in view
of the provisions of section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The writ petition was moved on September 21, 2006 when by the interim order the
respondents were restrained from demanding and/or realising any payment pursuant to
the supplementary bill raised by the Board. Directions for affidavits were given.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Board has served a copy of an affidavit to the petitioner. The petitioner has used an affidavit-in-reply thereto.
However, the records does not show that the Board has filed any affidavit in the Court.
None appears for the respondents today.
The matter was adjourned on the earlier occasion to allow representation to be made on behalf of the respondents.
2The Board through the impugned letter seeks to realise supplementary claim on account of electricity consumption for the period July 19, 1989 to September, 1991 and from October, 1992 to August, 1995 from the petitioner. No material has made available to record to suggest that the Board was claiming the same continuously in terms of section 56(2) of the Act of 2003.
In such circumstances since Board did not make the claim continuously and since the claim of the Board is in excess of two years from the date when such sum became first due, the action of the Board in demanding the sum as claimed for such period by the impugned notice cannot be sustained. The impugned notice demonstrates that the provisions of section 56 of the Act of 2003 have been invoked by the Board.
The impugned demand of the Board is set aside.
W.P.No. 21659(W) of 2006 is allowed.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)