Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Satpal Kaur Saluja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 January, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15
1 WP-27106-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
WRIT PETITION No. 27106 of 2024
SMT. SATPAL KAUR SALUJA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dheeraj Singh Panwar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi - Government Advocate for the State.
Reserved on : 14.11.2024
Pronounced on : 06.01.2025
_________________________________________________________________
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioner, challenging the notice dated 04.03.2024
(Annexure P/1), notice dated 07.06.2021 (Annexure P/2), panchnama dated
27.09.2016 and RRC dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P/4) passed/issued by the
respondents.
02. The facts of the case are that the petitioner obtained commercial
electricity connection of 20KW for a marriage garden. In the year 2008,
electricity load was enhanced to 75KW. The present load is 110KW. The
respondent officers inspected electricity connection of petitioner's marriage
garden on 27.09.2016 and prepared a panchnama under Sections 135, 138
and 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. They found that petitioner's billing has been
made by applying Multiplying Factor (M.F.) of 20 in place of 40 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15
2 WP-27106-2024
recorded that the fact would be verified from their office. Based on the
panchnama, the respondents issued additional demand for around Rs.14 Lacs
for the period from 2008 to 2016. On receipt of the demand, the petitioner
raised an objection stating that there is no default on her part in installation of
meter that the billing procedure is carried out by the respondents themselves
and that the petitioner is not liable for any additional billing. Subsequently,
respondent No.3 again raised demand by demand order dated 07.06.2021.
The petitioner on 15.06.2021 submitted an application to respondent No.3 to
provide documents pertaining to the demand. The respondents, however,
disconnected power supply of petitioner's marriage garden.
03. Being aggrieved by the demand notice and action of disconnection,
the petitioner preferred W.P. No.10831/2021 before this Court, which was
disposed off by order dated 07.07.2021 holding that she has a remedy to
challenge the recovery by way of complaint before the Electricity Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forum established under the Electricity Act, 2003. The
electricity connection was restored subject to payment of demand of 30% of
total amount of recovery. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the
Electricity Forum which by order dated 22.09.2022 held that respondents
may recover the demand as per the remedy available under other law on the
basis of judgement of the Supreme Court. It was also held that the
respondents are required to follow the process of law for adjudication and
recovery of impugned demand amount and cannot resort to disconnection for
this purpose. Thereafter, the respondents have issued notice dated
04.03.2024 to the petitioner through the Tehsildar for recovery of amount
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15
3 WP-27106-2024
due from her. They have also issued an RRC dated 22.02.2024 in the sum of
Rs.9,99,639/- against the petitioner.
04. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned demand is based on panchnama prepared under Sections 135, 138
and 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, which has not been proved before the
competent Court. There has not been any fault on part of the petitioner. She
is not a technical person and is not aware of the meter CT capacity and
Multiplying Factor to be applied unless it is adjudicated by an expert body in
the field. The impugned demand is stale and has been raised retrospectively
after 13 years from the year 2008. The action of the respondents is arbitrary
and illegal. The Electricity Forum did not record any evidence regarding the
CT of meter and applicability of Multiplying Factor and left open to initiate
proceeding under the law. The impugned notices/demand hence deserve to
be quashed.
05. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and have perused the record.
06. The initial demand which was made by the respondents was on
27.09.2016 vide Annexure P/3. Though it is submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner that since no action was taken upon the same for a number of
years, it would be deemed that the same had been dropped, but the said
contention is not acceptable. A demand once having been made unless
specifically recalled / reviewed / cancelled / set aside would remain to be
enforceable and merely because of passage of time would not automatically
come to an end. The same has not been shown to have been quashed by any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15
4 WP-27106-2024
superior authority. Merely because the respondents did not immediately
initiate consequential action pursuant thereto,it cannot be said that the
demand lost its legal effect.
07. On 07.06.2021, vide Annexure P/2, notice was again issued to the
petitioner which was in terms of the previous demand. The same was
challenged by the petitioner before the Electricity Consumer Grievance
Redressal Forum, Indore which by order dated 22.09.2022, held that the
petitioner has challenged the panchnama dated 27.09.2016 on the ground of
violation of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The respondents had
inspected the electricity connection of the petitioner on 04.03.2013 in
presence of her representative. The same was again done on 27.09.2016.
Thereafter, proceedings were further taken by the respondents. Reliance was
placed on a judgement of the Apex Court in Case No.1672 of 2020, wherein
it was held that the company may take recourse to any remedy available
under the law for recovery of the additional demand but is barred from taking
recourse to disconnection of supply of electricity. What was held in that case
was that Section 56 (2) did not preclude the licensee company from raising
an additional or supplementary demand after expiry of limitation period in
case of a mistake or bonafide error.It,however, did not empower the licensee
company to take recourse to coercive measures of disconnection of
electricity supply for recovery of additional demand.
08. Thus, reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court by the
Electricity Forum would be to the effect that the demand which had been
raised by the respondents from the petitioner which was in the nature of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15
5 WP-27106-2024
additional or supplementary demand since it was found in the inspection that
the petitioner ought to have been billed by applying multiplying factor of 40
instead of 20 as had been done is legally permissible. It was eventually held
by the Forum that barring disconnecting of electricity connection, the
respondents can take recourse to the remedies available under the law for
recovery of the demand. It is pursuant thereto that the notice dated
04.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) and the RRC dated 22.02.2024 have been issued
to the petitioner. Admittedly, the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the
Electricity Forum has not been challenged by the petitioner hence has
attained finality. It permitted the respondents to take action against the
petitioner for recovery of the additional demand. The action which is hence
being taken by the respondents by issuance of notice dated 04.03.2024 and
the RRC dated 22.02.2024 cannot be found fault with. The order dated
22.09.2022 has also not been challenged by the petitioner in this petition.
The earlier notice dated 07.06.2021 and panchnama dated 27.09.2016 were
challenged before the Forum which have not been set aside by it and on the
contrary, have been upheld, whereby respondents were permitted to take
action against the petitioner, hence their legality is not liable to be examined
in this petition.
09. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any ground to
interfere in any of the notices / orders passed by the respondents. The
petition is hence found to be devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15
6 WP-27106-2024
Shilpa
