Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shree Vaishanavi Ispat Limited & ... vs West Bengal Electricity ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1439 Cal

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1439 Cal
Judgement Date : 12 February, 2021

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shree Vaishanavi Ispat Limited & ... vs West Bengal Electricity ... on 12 February, 2021
     05
12.02.2021
 Ct. No.23
     pg.
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                              APPELLATE SIDE

                               (Via Video Conference)

                                 WPA 4034 of 2021

                     Shree Vaishanavi Ispat Limited & Anr.
                                        Vs.
              West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.


                    Mr.   Raja Basu Chowdhury
                    Mr.   Tanoy Chakraborty
                    Mr.   Sourav Bera
                    Mr.   Chhandak Dutta
                                 ... For the petitioners

                    Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Advocate
                    Ms. Neha Chakraborty
                                ... For WBERC

                    Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Advocate
                    Mr. Prasun Mukherjee
                    Mr. Deepak Agarwal
                                ... For DVC


                    The petitioner no.1 is a consumer under Damodar

             Valley Corporation (in short "DVC") for its factory situated

             at Gopalpur, Kanksa, Purba Bardhaman. The petitioners in

             this writ petition have challenged the summary statement

             raised by DVC, the licensee, dated 1st January, 2021 along

             with   the     amended     bills   claiming   a   sum     of

             Rs.10,76,73,568/- and the disconnection notice dated 28th

             January, 2021 issued by DVC in terms thereof threatening

             to disconnect the supply of petitioner no.1 within 15 days

             from the date of issuance of the said notice. The 15 days

             time period from 28th January, 2021 takes us to 12th

             February, 2021.
                          2




          The petitioners say that there was an excess

payment of Rs.1,35,53,833/- during the period 2006-2009

by the petitioner no.1 to DVC. This sum attracted interest

at the rate of 6% per annum. DVC has adjusted the energy

bill dated 10th February, 2010, 10th March, 2010, 9th April,

2010 and 7th May, 2010 from the said principal sum and

adjusting interest allegedly payable to it on a reducing

balance method has arrived at a figure of Rs.2,03,48,880/-

to be an amount allegedly due to DVC. DVC has thereafter

added Delayed Payment Surcharge (in short "DPS") for the

period 2010-13 for Rs.4,24,52,905/- and alleged unpaid

bills   till   April   2010    for   Rs.4,64,59,807/-   and   have

ultimately arrived at a figure of Rs.10,76,73,568/- after

deducting Rs.1,35,53,833/- therefrom.


          The petitioners have challenged the legality of

realisation of DPS as also the adjustments of bills which

are more than seven years old in the year 2021. The

petitioners say that the bills which are more than two years

due from the date when its payment allegedly fell due

attracts the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity

Act, 2003. The petitioners also refer to pages 391 to 410 to

demonstrate the discrepancy in the accounting process of

DVC.


          The    petitioners    apprehend    disconnection.   The

disconnection, if effected, will stop the operation of the

factory and will cause immense loss to the work-in-

progress. The employees of the petitioner no.1 including
                        3



the petitioner no.2 will be deprived of their livelihood if the

disconnection takes place.


        The petitioner no.1, however, by a letter dated 25th

January, 2021 has offered to DVC to pay a sum of

Rs.3,39,39,965/- by 24 instalments.


        The petitioners have relied upon a judgment

reported in (2020) 4 SCC 650 (Assistant Engineer (DI),

Ajmer    Vidyut      Vitran    Nigam      Limited   &   Anr.   v.

Rahamatullah Khan Alias Rahamjulla) to demonstrate

that in case of claims wherein limitation under the

provisions of Section 56(2) of the said Act are attracted like

the case in hand, no coercive mode like disconnection of

electric supply can be adopted by DVC as against the

petitioners.


        On behalf of DVC it is submitted that the bill has

been raised in terms of the various orders passed in the

proceedings inter se between the parties as also in terms of

the order of the Central and the State Electricity Regulatory

Commission. There is, as such, no error in the bill and the

petitioners    are    liable   to   pay    the   said   sum    of

Rs.10,76,73,568/-. It is also submitted on behalf of DVC

that the petitioners have disputed the bill raised by DVC. A

billing dispute is required to be adjudicated by the Regional

Grievance Redressal Officer, (in short, RGRO) set up in

terms of Section 42(5) of the said Act and then by the

electricity Ombudsman under Section 42(6) of the said Act.

The petitioners should be asked to approach the concerned
                      4



RGRO for redressal of his disputes. Some of the consumers

in similar circumstances have approached the RGRO. DVC

also says that in terms of the agreement between the

petitioners   and   respondents   there   is   an   arbitration

agreement and the disputes raised by the petitioners are

squarely covered by the arbitration clause and as such they

could have approached the arbitrator. The writ petition is

not maintainable in view of the subsistence of the

arbitration agreement and availability of a statutory forum.

On behalf of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory

Commission (in short, WBERC), it is submitted that on the

issue of disconnection, WBERC has nothing to say as it is

inter se dispute between the petitioner and DVC. So far as

the dispute regarding the bill raised by DVC, WBERC says

that RGRO and then electricity Ombudsman are the

statutory authorities before which the grievance has to be

ventilated by the petitioners. In this regard, WBERC has

relied upon a judgment reported in (2007) 8 SCC 381

(Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission vs.

Reliance Energy Ltd. & Ors.). Relying upon paragraphs

22, 31 and 33 it is submitted that RGRO is the only forum

which can be approached by the petitioners.

Since the petitioners have offered to pay the said

sum of Rs. Rs.3,39,39,965/-, without going into the

accounting dispute at this stage, the matter is adjourned till

26th February, 2021 to enable the petitioner no.1 to show

its bona fide.

The disconnection will not take into effect till 1st of

March, 2021, subject to the petitioner no.1 paying a sum of

Rs.75 lakh within 22nd February, 2021 as against the bill

dated 1st January, 2021. The payment shall be without

prejudice to the rights of the petitioners and will be

appropriated by DVC also without prejudice to its rights.

The question of legality of realisation of DPS and

adjustments of arrears as also the maintainability point

raised by the respondents are left open to be decided when

the matter is taken up next.

Let this matter appear on 26th February, 2021.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter