TRS NIRMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ Petitioners have filed this application to amend the memorandum of writ petition to add ground No. 5.11 advancing a plea that the demand for payment of arrears, impugned in the petition, made 17 years after the disconnection of electric supply to M/s. Nandi Re-rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., cannot be said to be within a reasonable time. It is stated that the relief in the writ petition is to declare the demand raised by the 3rd Respondent as illegal and void abinitio. The application is opposed by filing statement of objections of Respondents 1 to 3 interlaid contending that the amendment sought for after a lapse of 4 years from the date of institution of the writ petition suffers from latches and delay and there is no explanation forthcoming, and that the decision in Bangalore Development Authority v. Sumitradevi, 2005 ILR(KAR) 1386 relied upon in support of the proposed pleading, is inapplicable. The averments in the statement of objections to the writ petition, it is stated are to be read as part and parcel of the objections to the I.A. In addition, it is contended that there is no limitation prescribed for the Respondent/company to raise a demand and recover the same, and that the impugned demand is in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., 2009 AIR(SC) 647.

(2.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings, undoubtedly the only objection to the amendment is that it is belated and filed 4 years after institution of the writ petition, while the other objections are on the merit of the proposed pleading.

(3.) Keeping in mind the fact that the Petitioner has called in question the demand raised by the 3rd Respondent to pay the arrears of charges for energy consumed by the previous consumer M/s. Nandi Re-rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. in the premises in question nearly 17 years after the first demand against the said company, cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that the ground now sought to be urged by the amendment is belated, and suffers from delay and latches. It may be that 4 years have lapsed since institution of the petition, but that cannot be a ground to disentitle the Petitioner to urge the plea of limitation and foreclose the case. The petition is one invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore in the fact circumstances the objection of the 3rd Respondent is devoid of merit and stands rejected.