Telangana High Court
Balaji Steel Rolling Industries vs The Southern Power Distribution ... on 6 September, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 4961 OF 2017
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demanding huge amounts as arrears without any basis and invoking the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 and the Rules made thereunder in G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 01.10.1985 called Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Rules, 1985 as wholly arbitrary, illegal and void and consequently, to set aside 1) Notice No.SE/OP/RR EAST/SAO/JAO-HT/SA-I/Form No.RRE- 146, D.No.1235, dated 22.7.2016, 2) Notice No. SE/OP/RR EAST/SAO/JAO-HT/SA-I/Form No-B/D.No.1549, dated 20.12.2016 of the 3rd respondent and further direct the respondents to pay Rs.1,19,61,783/- with future interest at 18% p.a to petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are: petitioner was consumer of the 1st respondent DISCOM with consumer No:
RRE-146, under H.T- 1 Category with a CMD of 2200 KVA. The Superintendent Engineer - the 3rd respondent served notice dated 22.07.2016 in Form-A of the APSEB (Recovery of Dues) 2 Rules 1985 demanding C.C. Dues, FSA dues & R & C dues in a sum of Rs.3,79,09,032/- and surcharge of Rs.96,66,803/- at 1.5% pm i.e. 18% from 01.03.2015 to 31.07.2016, totalling to Rs. 4,75,75,835/- within 15 days from the date of notice. Later on, the 3rd respondent issued another notice dated 20.12.2016 in Form 'B' under Rule-4(2) demanding Rs.3,78,71,666/- as C.C. dues, FSA dues & R &C dues and surcharge at 1.5% p.m. from 01.03.2015 to 30.11.2016 in a sum of Rs.1,19,01,241/-
totalling Rs.4,98,01,241/- and further stated that if the amount is not paid within three months from the date of service of notice, petitioner would be deemed to be defaulter and the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
It is stated that the said two notices are not legal both on facts and law. Petitioner is not liable to pay the amount demanded and on the other hand, respondents are liable to pay Rs.1,19,61,783/- to petitioner. Further, it is stated that as per the letter dated 20.10.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent, the outstanding dues on account of ACD Surcharge, late payment charges, MD charges, FSA instalments in a sum of Rs.2,38,22,881-00 and R & C dues of Rs.15,71,347-00 totalling Rs.2,53,94,228-00. This amount of Rs.2,38,22,881/- is made up of wrongly levied R & C charges of Rs.1,22,54,715/- plus 3 Rs.35,40,471/- as interest thereon. This amount of Rs.1,57,95,186/- is included in Bill dated 26.08.2013 as CC arrears and again interest is charged on this amount in a sum of Rs.44,27,756/-. An unexplained surcharge of Rs.6,01,217/- is included. CC bill of August 2014 of Rs.49,13,640/-is also included. It is stated that demand of Rs.2,53,94,228/- is wrong and the 3rd respondent admitted in his letter dated 23.12.2014 that R & C bills were wrongly raised at Rs.1,22,54,715/- as it was calculated at 60% power consumption and recalculation on the basis of 18 power on and 12 power off day R & C charges come to Rs.35,30,690/- and after waiver of 50%, net amount payable come to Rs.15,71,342/-. Therefore, inclusion of R & C charges plus interest thereon in a sum of Rs.2,02,22,842/- has to be removed from the demand, instead, respondents added this amount in the total due. In so far as CC bill of August 2014 is concerned, petitioner states that they paid Rs.31,54,525/- leaving balance of Rs.17,59,115/-, but respondents have not given credit to this amount and further a sum of Rs.3,28,879/- is included towards interest on R & C amount and an amount of Rs.28,089/- as surcharge; thus, a total of Rs.35,10,903/- is wrongly claimed. During R & C period, there was no minimum demand charges, but respondents have levied and collected 4 Rs.36,51,600/- as minimum M.D. charges, but they have neither refunded nor adjusted. According to petitioner, after deleting illegal inclusion of Rs.2,02,22,402 + 35,10,903/- + 6,01,217/- (2,43,34,522) in the bills, there will be a balance of Rs.10,59,706/-. Petitioner further stated that as against the said balance, there is a deposit of Rs.60,30,252/- with the respondents. There is an interest due of Rs.17,84,501/- on the said deposit till January 2017, thus total due to petitioner is Rs.78,14,753/-, on account of security deposit a sum of Rs.36,51,600/- illegally collected as demand charges during R & C period is lying with respondents. After deducting Rs.10,59,706/- payable to respondents, still there is balance of Rs.25,91,894/- and the same is payable with interest at 18% per annum from September 2013 till January 2017 which comes to Rs.15,55,136/-, totalling to Rs.41,47,030/-. Thus, DISCOM is liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 1,19,61,783/- to petitioner.
It is contended by petitioner that there is yet another way of showing that demand is wrong basing on the own statement of account from July, 2012 to November, 2014, total due is shown as only Rs.1,06,21,243/- and this amount is inclusive of interest surcharge on R & C and FSA. From this 5 amount, interest and surcharge on R & C and FSA have to be deducted as in November 2014, total due is shown as only Rs.1,06,21,243/-. From this, interest and surcharge on R & C and FSA have to be deducted as R & C amount was revised from Rs.1,22,54,715/- to Rs.15,71,342/-. There remains a balance of Rs.47,16,933/- from this amount the minimum demand charges of Rs.36,51,600/- illegally levied and collected during R & C period is deducted, then balance due comes to Rs.10,65,333/-. The amount due to petitioner towards deposit is Rs.75,88,619/-. After deducting dues, there is balance of Rs.65,23,286/- due and payable to petitioner on account of security deposit. Thus, viewed from any angle, as on the date of disconnection of power supply, petitioner is not due of any amount to respondents.
Petitioner further stated that power was disconnected on 12.11.2014, but levied minimum charges for four months which comes to Rs.66,96,882/- and this is subject matter of Writ Petition No.3486 of 2015 wherein vide order dated 18.02.2015, stay was granted. Even if petitioner loses the above Writ Petition, the amount of security deposit is sufficient to cover the demand. According to petitioner, claim is not sustainable legally and that in C.C. Bills, respondents have 6 been showing the astronomical figures as arrears they have not shown C.C. charges arrears; therefore, they do not comply with sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act which stipulates that arrears are not recoverable after two years of their falling due unless charges for electricity supplied is continuously shown as recoverable arrears. The respondents are not entitled to invoke the provisions of the A.P. State Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 or the Rules made there under in G.O.M.S. No.50, dated 01.10.1985 as the same is not saved under Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is also stated that alternatively, the State of Telangana has not adopted the above Act and the Rules.
Section-56 of the Electricity Act deals with arrears and their recovery. Sub-section (1) thereof states that dues/arrears are recoverable by a suit. Provisions of the Central Act prevail over the State enactments on the same subject. When the amount of arrears are uncertain or barred by time or when the person in arrears disputes the liability, provisions of Revenue Recovery Act cannot be invoked, stated by petitioner.
3. This Court by order dated 15.02.2017 admitted the Writ Petition and ordered interim stay.
7
4. The case of the respondents is that the Superintending Engineer being the competent authority authorized officer of TSSPDCL served a notice in Form-A under the Revenue Recovery Act as adopted by APSEB vide G.O. Ms. No. 50 dated 01.10.1985 for CC charges dues payable to TSSPDCL by Petitioner - M/s. Balaji Steel Rolling Industries, HT SC. No RRE146 to the tune of Rs.3,79,09,032/- and surcharge thereon from 01.03.2015 to 31.07.2016 at the rate of 1.5 % PM amounting to Rs.96,66803/- totally Rs.4,75,75,835/- requesting to pay the amount in full settlement within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. As per para 4(2) of the abovesaid G.O., 'if the debtor fails to pay the dues on or before the date specified in the bill, the prescribed authority may serve or cause to serve a notice of demand indicating in addition to the amount specified in the bill, a penalty thereof for the delay, beyond the due date and costs, if any. The debtor shall pay the amount specified in notice within three months. The notice of demand shall be in Form 'B'. Accordingly, the SE (Operations) had issued Form 'B' notice to petitioner for payment of dues to the tune of Rs.3,78,71,666/- (after deducting surcharge of Rs.37,366/- on the demand charges levied on account of deration of CMD from 2200 KVA to 10HP) including surcharge 8 at 1.5% pm. to Rs. 1,19,29,575/- totalling to the tune of Rs.4,98,01,241/- within the stipulated period. It is further stated that the two notices served are legal. The month-wise demand of CC dues, FSA dues and R&C dues payable by petitioner is submitted in a ledger statement (Annexure-A) final abstract of termination for ready reference. As per the dues mentioned in the statement enclosed, notices served on petitioner hold good and the claim of petitioner stating that respondents are only liable to pay Rs.1,19,61,783/- to petitioner is not correct and the same is denied. It is stated, month-wise energy and demand charges, FSA charges, R&C amounts, cheques dishonoured amounts and the details of payments made thereof by petitioner and the dues to be paid by them form April 2011 to December 2014 are shown in a separate statement as Annexure - A which was filed along with counter affidavit.
It is further stated that the very claim of petitioner is false and baseless. An amount of Rs.70,23,198/-was accumulated by the end of September, 2014 towards Current consumption charges, Rs. 15,71,342/- towards R&C penalties and Rs.1,45,33701/- towards FSA. Thereafter, 15 days notice is given to consumer for payment of outstanding dues pending up to September, 2014 ledger month of Rs.2,53,94,228/- vide Lr. 9 No.SE/OP/RRE/SAO/JAO/HT/F.No.146/D.No.317, dated 20.10.2014. Petitioner has stated in the affidavit that R & C amount of Rs. 1,22,54,715/- was wrongly raised in the bills, however, R & C bills were firstly issued with 60% consumption option amounting to Rs.1,22,54,715/- but was later on revised to Rs.51,02,032/- with 100% consumption option and the difference amount of Rs. 71,52,683/- was withdrawn. Further, it is stated that 50% R & C penal charges of Rs. 35,30,689/- was waived off (out of 70,61,378/- 100% penal Charges) out of the payable dues of Rs.51,02,032/- and the balance of Rs. 15,71,343/- is payable. It is stated surcharge levied on the firstly issued R & C bills is withdrawn as shown in the final abstract for termination.
It is stated that though it was alleged by petitioner that payment of August 2014 is not credited by the Respondents, payment was acknowledged to the account of the consumer. Petitioner is deliberately misleading the Court with wrong figures. Consumer has not paid FSA charges included in the current bills regularly. In this regard, it is to state that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dismissed C.A.No. 5542 of 2016 and batch cases vide judgment dated 05.07.2016 directing the appellants to make payment of FSA charges along with interest, 10 if no other charges for delay, as may be permissible to recover, within a period of one month from the date of judgment. In addition, the Supreme Court gave liberty to TSSPDCL to take coercive steps to recover the amount. Therefore, petitioner has to pay FSA charges levied as per the above order. The said amounts have been paid by other consumers along with interest @ 1.5% per month.
As regards Writ Petition No. 3486 of 2015 is concerned, it is stated that earlier, minimum charges were raised to the tune of Rs.62,63,933/- for the period from December, 2014 to March, 2015 for a CMD of 2200 KVA, however, the said four months minimum charges were revised and withdrawn, for the Revised CMD from 2200 KVA to 10 HP with effect from one month from the date of the Application (ie., on 23.09.2014) as per Memo.
No.CGM(Comml)/SE(Cy/DE(Cy/ADE-I/D.No.644/16 dated 16.05.2016. As the consumer availed Maximum load of 2030 KVA in November, 2014, difference of demand charges, energy charges, customer charges were withdrawn from December, 2014 to March, 2015 amounting to Rs.38,99,350/- along with Surcharge of Rs.37,366/- as shown in the final abstract against the minimum charges for Rs.62,63.933/-. Petitioner company 11 has not paid the dues from 2011 onwards, as a result, Rs. 70,23,198/- has accumulated by the end of September, 2014 towards CC and R&C Rs. 15,71,342/- and Rs. 1,45,33,701/- towards FSA. It is clear from Ledger Sheet that cheques arranged for payment by the consumer against their HT service were dishonoured several times prior to their representation dated 23.09.2014. The month-wise accumulated dues against CC charges, FSA R&C were shown in Ledger Statement filed along with counter-affidavit. Final dues are shown in the abstract for Termination as Rs.4,18,08,382/-after deducting all surcharges on R&C (includes unpaid dues up to November, 2014 bill, plus minimums up to March 2015 plus Voltage Surcharge Court Case amount of Rs.8,99,318/- FSA Court Case amount Rs.4,71,009.25/- and unlevied FSA amount of Rs.59,27,647.63/-) was revised to Rs.3,78,71,666/- after deducting excess demand charges levied from December, 2014 to March 2015 from 2200 KV to 10 HP. Respondents proceeded to collect the above dues by taking necessary steps under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of dues from petitioner. The agreement was terminated as per GTCS and Regulations applicable. The monthly arrears on account of CC charges are continuously shown in the subsequent month CC bills, hence, it 12 was stated that the contention of petitioner is untenable. The amounts are recoverable and there is no delay or latches on the part of respondents.
It is further stated that as per sub-section 2(e) of Section 185 'all directives issued by the State Government before commencement of Electricity Act 2003, the enactments specified in the schedule shall continue to apply for the period for which such directions were issued by the State Government'. Therefore, the contention of petitioner that respondents are not entitled to invoke the provisions of A.P. State Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 or the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.50 dated: 01-10-1985 holds no water. Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act deals with disconnection of supply for default in payment of dues. The demand for arrears are being made regularly and there is no delay on the part of the respondents in taking steps to recover dues from petitioner. In the present case, petitioner has deliberately disputed his liability every demand is raised and now claims that the said amounts are not recoverable under Section 56. The relief sought by petitioner is misconceived and the same does not merit consideration. Petitioner is liable to pay total dues of Rs.4,98,01,241/- as shown in Form-B (Rs. 3,78,71,666/- along 13 with surcharge of Rs.1,19,29,575/-) to TSSPDCL. The claim of petitioner that respondents are liable to pay Rs.1,19,61,783/- to them is baseless and is not supported by any documents. Security Deposit of Rs.50,76,738/- is already adjusted against the payable dues at the time of Termination of HT Agreement RRE-146 and the same is shown in Abstract of dues of Termination.
Respondents further stated that this Court by order dated: 15.02.2017 stayed operation of Notice No. SE/OP/RREAST/SAO/JAO-HT/SA-I/Form-B/D.No. 1549 dated: 20-12-2016 and Notice No. SE/OP/RRE/SAO/JAO- HT/SA-I/Form B/D.No. 1549 dated 20.12.2016 pending Writ Petition and petitioner company, taking advantage of the orders, is trying to alienate the immovable property and create charge of 3rd parties and if order dated 15.02.2017 is not vacated, it would cause irreparable loss to the respondent Company.
5. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri E. Ganesh and the learned Additional Advocate General and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
14
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and having perused the material on record, the point for consideration is 'whether action of respondents in issuing notice to petitioner in Form-A under Rule 4(1) and notice in Form-B under Rule 4(2) of APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Rules, 1985 is justified and is in accordance with law.
7. Firstly, it is to be noted that bad debt refers to money owed to a company that is unlikely to be paid, often due to factors such as negligence, financial crises, or bankruptcy on the part of consumers. Recognized as a standard accounting item, bad debt is an unavoidable aspect of any business. Under the APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Rule, 1985, licensees are required to take all necessary steps to recover bad debts. While recovery may occur at a later date in some cases, any amounts recovered are proposed to be considered under Non-Tariff Income for that specific year. To deter licensees from accumulating such bad debts, it has been included under controllable items with specified limits for each year and cumulatively.
8. Rule 2 defines 'debtor' as 'any consumer or other person by whom any dues are payable to the Board'. Under Rule 3 - 'dues' means any sum payable to the Board on account of (i) 15 consumption of electrical energy supplied including minimum charges payable after disconnection and other charges payable under the terms and conditions of supply. Further, according to Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, a statutory right is conferred on the licensee company to disconnect supply of electricity if consumer declines to pay the statutory dues.
9. The Superintending Engineer being the competent authority authorized officer of TSSPDCL served a notice in Form-A under the Revenue Recovery Act as adopted by APSEB vide G.O. Ms. No 50, dated 01.10.1985 for CC charges dues payable to TSSPDCL by petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,79,09,032/- and surcharge thereon from 01.03.2015 to 31.07.2016 at 1.5 % per month amounting to Rs.96,66803/- totally for Rs.4,75,75,835/- requesting to pay the amount in full settlement within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. As per para 4(2) of above said G.O. 'If the debtor fails to pay dues on or before the date specified in the bill, the prescribed authority may serve or cause to serve a notice of indicating in addition to the amount specified in the bill, a penalty thereof for the delay, beyond the due date and costs, if any. The debtor shall pay the amount specified in notice within three months. The notice of demand shall be in Form 'B'. Accordingly, the 16 SE/Operations issued Form 'B' notice to petitioner for payment of dues of Rs.3,78,71,666/- (after deducting the surcharge of Rs.37,366/- on the demand charges levied on account of deration of CMD from 2200 KVA to 10HP) including surcharge at 1.5% per month to Rs. 1,19,29,575/- totalling to Rs. 4,98,01,241/- within the stipulated period. It is further stated that the two notices served are legal. The month wise demand of CC dues, FSA dues and R&C dues payable by the petitioner as per the Statement annexed along with the counter affidavit.
10. An amount of Rs.70,23,198/-was accumulated by the end of September 2014 towards current consumption charges, Rs. 15,71,342/- towards R&C penalties and Rs.1,45,33701/- towards FSA. Thereafter, 15 days notice is given to consumer for payment of outstanding dues pending up to September, 2014 ledger month of Rs.2,53,94,228/- vide Lr. No.SE/OP/RRE/SAO/JAO/HT/F.No.146/D.No.317, dated 20.10.2014. Petitioner stated in the affidavit that R & C amount of Rs. 1,22,54,715/- was wrongly raised in the bills. However, R & C bills were firstly issued with 60% consumption option amounting to Rs.1,22,54,715/- but was later on revised to Rs.51,02,032/- with 100% consumption option and difference amount of Rs. 71,52,683/- was withdrawn. Further, it is to 17 submit that 50% R & C penal charges of Rs. 35,30,689/- was waived off (out of 70,61,378/- 100% penal Charges) out of the payable dues of Rs.51,02,032/- and the balance of Rs. 15,71,343/- is payable.
11. The core contention of petitioner is that in terms of Section 56(2), arrears are not recoverable after two years of their falling due, unless charges for electricity supplied is continuously shown as recoverable arrears. This Court, after perusing the record, is unable to countenance the contention of petitioner that arrears are not recoverable from petitioner for the reason that monthly arrears on account of CC charges are continuously shown in subsequent month CC bills. In this regard, it is to be noted that the power to discontinue supply to a consumer is dealt with in Section 56 of the 2003 Act, which reads as under:
Section 56: Disconnection of supply in default of payment of amount (1) 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 rights 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 or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer:
Provided that the supply of electricity shall not be cut off if such person deposits, under protest,--
a) an amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or 18
b) the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months, whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee.
(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 the electricity.
12. Section 56(2) which begins with a non-obstante clause, provides a limitation of two years for recovery of dues by the licensee through the means of disconnecting electrical supply. It puts a restriction on the right of the licensee to recover any sum due from a consumer under Section 56 after a period of two years from the date when such sum became first due. If this provision is invoked against a consumer after two years, the action would be permissible when the sum, which was first due, has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied. Under Section 56, the liability to pay arises on the consumption of electricity and the obligation to pay arises when a bill is issued by the licensee for the first time. Accordingly, the period of limitation of two years starts only after issuance of bill.
13. In this case, the respondents issued Form 'A' on 22.07.2016 and thereafter Form 'B' notice of demand dated 20.12.2016 duly enclosing statement of account. It discloses the demand from July 2012 to November 2014 as Rs.10621243.74 19 ps. clearly bifurcating the amount as demand, interest, surcharge, actual payable, payment and payable. It is clear from the above statement that every month, arrears to be paid were shown in the column 'payable'. Section 56(1) deals with disconnection of supply, for default in payment of dues. The demand for arrears are being made regularly and there is no delay on the part of respondents in taking steps to recover dues from petitioner.
14. Further, as per sub-section 2(e) of Section 185, 'all directives issued by the State Government before commencement of 2003 Act, enactments specified in the schedule shall continue to apply for the period for which such directions were issued by the State Government'. Therefore, the contention of petitioner that respondents are not entitled to invoke the provisions of A.P. State Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 or the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 01.10.1985 holds no water.
15. In the present case, petitioner deliberately disputed its liability when every demand is raised and now claims that said amounts are not recoverable under Section 56. The 20 contention of petitioner is not tenable. The relief sought by them is misconceived and the same does not merit consideration.
16. Further, it is pertinent to note that on 23.12.2016, a criminal complaint was lodged against petitioner for unauthorised dismantling of TSSPDCL structure along with metering equipment of 33KV service (CTs, PTs, HT Meter) in their premises without intimation to the department pending outstanding dues to the department for which P.S. Nacharam had also registered FIR No.380 of 2016, dated 24.12.2018. Therefore, viewed from any angle, notice dated 20.12.2016 and notice dated 20.12.2016 cannot be termed as bad in law, as such, the same are in accordance with law.
17. For the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is bereft of any reasons and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
18. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board 1 and has drawn the attention of this Court on the implication of Section 56(2) on recovery of electricity dues by electric utilities, 1 2023 SCC Online SC 663.
21duly referring to the earlier judgments, whereunder the Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to discuss the scope of Section 56(2) which basically sets out different time lines with regard to disconnection, duration of disconnection, and restoration on payment of outstanding dues. Learned Senior Counsel also argues that the bar of limitation under Section 56(2) restricts the remedy of disconnection under Section 56, the licensee is entitled to recover electricity arrears through civil remedies or in exercise of its statutory power under the conditions of supply. In the said judgment, the Apex Court held that the power to initiate recovery proceedings by filing suit against a consumer is independent of the power to disconnect electrical supply as a means of recovery under Section 56(2) of the 2003 Act.
19. It can be seen from the provisions referred to under the Electricity Act that the purport of Section 56 (2) is not to unduly empower a consumer to evade payment of electricity charges due on the simple ground of lapse of period of limitation of two years when such amount has first become due. The Act would rather empower the electricity authority to take recourse to either civil remedies or under the statutory powers to recover the dues and would at best protect the consumer from disconnection of supply. In that view of the matter, the 22 contention of learned Senior Counsel that the respondent authority cannot lay claim for dues after expiry of two years under Section 56(2) and that Section provides a blanket ban on respondent authorities, cannot be countenanced.
20. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 06th September 2024 ksld