The High Court of Calcutta, while allowing a petition challenging the action of the respondent whereby it disconnected the electricity connection of the petitioner without any notice, held that the language and manner in which sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the 2003 Act is couched makes the provision of the time bar stipulated therein mandatory in nature.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner has been enjoying electricity since the year 2016. However, the petitioner was not charged with electricity bills all along before a composite bill was raised, apparently for the period between March 2018 and February 2024, on December 5, 2023. Only three installments were granted to the petitioner. Subsequently, after the payment of the first installment, the petitioner approached the concerned Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO). During the pendency of the said challenge, however, the electricity connection of the petitioner was disconnected without fifteen clear days’ notice given by the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL).
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that apart from the fact that the claim of the WBSEDCL was palpably time-barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (2003 Act), no clear fifteen days’ notice was given, thereby vitiating the disconnection.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the petitioner himself agreed to comply with the claim of the WBSEDCL. He argued that in the said bill itself, it is clearly indicated that failure of installment payment within the due date as stated above would lead to cancellation of the installment order and disconnection of supply without any further notice, thereby precluding the necessity of any further notice in any event. Having taken advantage of the said installment bill, the petitioner cannot now resile from such position by pleading the bar of Section 56(2) of the 2003 Act.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that Section 56(2) of the 2003 Act, in no uncertain terms, stipulates that 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 a period of two years from the date when such sum became first due”.
The Court observed that the language and manner in which sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the 2003 Act is couched makes the provision of the time bar stipulated therein mandatory in nature. There is no scope to waive a right, which has not been conferred by the statute. Section 56(2) of the 2003 Act is not a right conferred on the consumer, which can be waived by the consumer, but a statutory fetter cast on the Distribution Licensee. A legal fetter cannot be waived by agreement of parties.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, allowing the petition, held that WBSEDCL is directed to immediately restore the electricity connection of the petitioner without asking for any reconnection charges or further charges whatsoever.
Case Title: Sri Surajit Mondal v. The Secretary, Department of Power & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Case No.: WPA No. 6139 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Biswajit Roy
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Madhusudan Saha Roy
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :