Maha. State Electricity ... vs Head Master, Anudanit Prathamik ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2828 Bom

                                 1                                          wp40.17.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 40 OF 2017
 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company vrs. Head Master,
                 Anudanit Prathamik Ashram Shala and another.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of                          Court's or Judge's Order
 Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
 or directions and Registrar's order
                 Shri S.V.Purohit, Advocate for petitioner.
                 Shri S.Y.Deopujari, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.



                           CORAM :- AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED :- 11.02.2021

Mr. Deopujari, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the present matter is covered by the judgment of the Full Bench in case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., vrs. Electricity Ombudsman, Mumbai, reported in 2019 (2) Mh.L.J. 884, which holds thus -

66. ........ In the case of sub-section (2) of section 56, it is the consumer to whom the electricity is supplied. He cannot be vexed in the event the licensee is negligent in recovering the amount due. The licensee can recover the amount due from the consumer only for a period of two years when such sum became first due. In the event, after two years the licensee wants to recover the amount, then it is the obligation and duty of the licensee as well to show the sum due from the consumer continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for the electricity supplied to the consumer. The supply may be already effected and the charges may be unpaid. However, in the running/monthly bills which are dispatched to the consumer, such sum has to be continuously shown as recoverable as arrears of charges of electricity and then alone, after the period of two years, the recovery is permissible."

It is an admitted position on record that the dues were not raised upon the respondent for continuous period of more than seven years . The total bill which was raised was for Rs. 6,74,093/-,

2 wp40.17.odt

out of which an amount of Rs.3,48,000/- has been paid, which position is accepted by Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner. If the dictum of the Full Bench as held in para 66 is applied, then the electricity charges beyond the period of three years from the date of raising of the bill is not recoverable, by applying the Limitation Act, 1963.

Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for petitioner, however, submits that there is a subsequent judgment of the Hon Apex Court which dilates on the issue of continuity of the demand. He therefore submits that he would require time to place it on record.

Stand over to ten weeks.

JUDGE Rvjalit