Golak Sarkar And Others vs West Bengal State Electricity ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1806 Cal

AD-09
Ct No.09
17.03.2023

TN WPA No. 4507 of 2023

Golak Sarkar and others Vs.

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and others

Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Mr. Tarunjyoti Tewari, Mr. Anirudha Tewari, Mr. Amrit Sinha .... for the petitioners

Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy .... for the WBSEDCL

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends

that the petitioners are agriculturists and are saddled

with billing dispute due to the claims made by the

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company

Limited (WBSEDCL). It is submitted that the claims

are disputed. On several occasions, the petitioners

were asked to make one-time payments under a one-

time waiver scheme.

By placing reliance on several electricity bills

and other documents annexed to the writ petition,

learned counsel submits that the WBSEDCL has been

raising several claims regarding the alleged arrears of

amount, although the petitioners have been paying

electricity charges regularly.

Further, learned counsel for the petitioners

places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court

reported at (2020) 4 SCC 650 (Assistant Engineer (D1),

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and another vs.

Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla). By placing

particular reliance on paragraph no.8 thereof, it is

argued that Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003

does not preclude the licensee company from raising a

supplementary demand after the expiry of the

limitation period of two years. It only restricts the

right of the licensee to disconnect electricity supply

due to non-payment of dues after the period of

limitation of two years has expired, but does not

restrict other modes of recovery which may be

initiated by the licensee company for recovery of a

supplementary demand.

Learned counsel appearing for the WBSEDCL

controverts the claims of the petitioners and submits

that the present claims were made in due time and

shown continuously to be unpaid by the petitioners.

As such, the operation of Section 56(2) of the

Electricity Act, 2003 (for short "the 2003 Act") is not

attracted in the present case at all.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it

is crystal clear from the cited judgment of the

Supreme Court that the same was rendered in a

completely different perspective than the present case.

Rather, paragraph no.8 of the said judgment

goes in favour of the licensee and not the consumer.

Section 56(2) of the 2003 Act provides a bar to

claiming dues after the expiry of two years from the

date when the amount became first due.

However, the present case does not fall under

the said category, since the alleged amounts fell due

on the basis of current bills, which were all along

shown in the electricity bills of the consumer.

In fact, what the Supreme Court seeks to

distinguish in paragraph no.8 of the judgment is

between other modes of recovery and the restriction of

the right of the licensee to disconnect electricity

supply only in cases where the bar of two years as

stipulated in Section 56(2) applies.

The provision was rather liberally viewed by the

Supreme Court to the extent that the licensee

company, even in such cases, is not precluded from

raising a supplementary demand after the expiry of

the limitation period and to resort to other modes of

recovery. Thus, the said judgment does not come to

the aid of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever.

Even otherwise, the Regulations of the WBERC

provide that the Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO)

concerned is the appropriate authority for deciding

billing disputes.

Since the petitioners have raised billing disputes

in the present writ petition, it is more prudent to

permit the GRO to adjudicate the same instead of

usurping the forum of the said authority by this court.

Accordingly, WPA No. 4507 of 2023 is dismissed

without any order as to costs.

However, it will be open to the petitioners to

approach the concerned GRO with the billing disputes

as sought to be raised in the present writ petition. If

such an approach is made, the GRO shall decide the

issue in accordance with law upon hearing all

concerned, including the petitioners and the licensee,

as expeditiously as possible, positively within eight

weeks from the date of such reference being made.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)