Punjab-Haryana High Court
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. ... vs M/S Roop Kamal Stone Crusher And Anr on 2 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114657
CWP-6284-2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
222 CWP-6284-2021
Date of decision: 02.09.2024
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
M/s Roop Kamal Stone Crusher & another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present : Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Vinay Kumar Arya, Advocate for
Mr. Anshul Mangla, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed challenging the award dated
02.12.2020 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services),
Yamuna Nagar, whereby the application filed by respondent No.1-applicant
has been allowed and the demand raised by the petitioners has been set
aside.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
contends that respondent No.1-applicant is a consumer of the petitioners
having a non-domestic electricity supply connection for running his Saw
Mill. The electricity connection account No.LS-26 of respondent No.1-
applicant was audited by the internal audit party and as per its Half Margin
Report No.8 dated 29.11.2019 for the period from April, 2017 to March,
2018, it was noticed that the energy meter was replaced vide MCO No.
48/01 dated 18.05.2017 on 19.06.2017 for providing CT/PT facility. In the
previous meter, the consumption was being computed by applying a
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114657
multiplying factor of .15 to the recorded units, whereas in the new meter,
consumption was to be computed by applying Multiplying Factor of 3. The
billing was however inadvertently done by applying the old Multiplying
Factor of .15 thus resulting in less amount being charged by the distribution
licensee from the consumer. The account of respondent No.1-applicant was,
accordingly, over-hauled for the said period and the differential charge was
claimed from respondent No.1-applicant. The same was challenged by
respondent No.1-applicant before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility
Services), Yamuna Nagar, which allowed the application by relying on
Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, to contend that a demand which
is raised after a period of more than 2 years, cannot be recovered by the
distribution licensee.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
contends that the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility
Services), Yamuna Nagar, suffers from misappreciation of the statutory
provisions enshrined under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act. He
contends that the amount becomes due and payable to the distribution
licensee after the mistake is detected and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has already held that the distribution licensee is entitled to claim such an
amount. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s
Prem Cottex vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others,
reported as 2021 (4) RCR (Civil) 422, that if the licencee has not raised any
bill, merely because there is no negligence on the part of the consumer to
pay bill, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 56 (2) of the
Electricity Act will not start running and has to be computed from the date
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114657
when the error/mistake is detected.
Second argument raised is to the effect that the dispute was
principally in the nature of a billing dispute on account of revision of the
charges due to the bills having been wrongly demanded on account of a
wrong multiplication factor. The same was essentially a billing dispute and
not a supply dispute and thus the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction
to entertain the application.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is not in a position to
dispute the applicability of the aforesaid judgment and fairly concedes that
the dispute was essentially not in the nature of supply dispute and was
principally a dispute pertaining to the demand of electricity consumption
charges.
I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have
gone through the documents appended along with the present petition.
As the counsel for the respondent-applicant concedes that the
dispute was not in the nature of supply dispute and is a billing dispute
which could not have been taken cognizance of by the Permanent Lok
Adalat, the other argument pertaining to Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act,
2003, need not be dealt with any further. The proceedings were thus not
maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat. This Court refrains from
proceeding any further in the matter on merits lest it may cause prejudice to
the inter se rights of the contesting parties.
The present writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the award
dated 02.12.2020 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services),
Yamuna Nagar, in application No.20/YNR/2020 titled 'M/s Roop Kamal
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114657
Stone Crusher Vs. S.D.O., Op, U.B.V.N.', is set aside. Respondent No.1-
applicant shall however be entitled to raise a challenge to the said demand
before the competent forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act,
2003.
In the event of respondent No.1-applicant taking recourse to
such a proceeding, the period spent in pursuing the remedy with the Legal
Services Authority and before this Court shall be taken into consideration
for computing limitation. Needless to mention that an expeditious decision
shall be taken on the case, if so instituted.
02.09.2024 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
monika JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
