JS FURNISHING PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a common decision WP(C) No.3637/1990 and WP(C) No.16784/2004 have been disposed of by a learned Single Judge.

(2.) WP (C) No.3637/1990 has been allowed following the law declared by a learned Single Judge in the decision reported as 112 (2004) DLT 690 Jor Bagh Association vs. UOI. But WP(C) No.16784/2004 has been dismissed holding that unless charges levied by L&DO were not paid, in view of the law declared in the decisions reported as 129 (2006) DLT 213 Madhav Garg vs. NDPL and 161 (2009) DLT 28 BSES Rajdhan Power Ltd. vs. Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Ltd., the question of the demand being barred by limitation would not arise.

(3.) AS regards reliance placed by the learned Single Judge in the decisions reported as 129 (2006) DLT 213 Madhav Garg vs. NDPL and 161 (2009) DLT 28 BSES Rajdhan Power Ltd. vs. Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Ltd., suffice would it be to state that the learned Single Judge has failed to note the difference between statutory demands and non-statutory demands. Whereas demands which are statutory do not become barred by limitation; non-statutory demands attract the Law of Limitation. With respect to demands towards electricity dues, as held by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported as 2006 (13) SCC 101 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd. vs. Paramount Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and 2010 (9) SCC 145 Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hanuman Rice Mills & Ors., one has to apply the law carefully. Only if the electricity demand is statutory, be it under a statute or on a condition of supply which is statutory in character LPAs No.851/2011 & 509/2012 Page 2 of 4 alone then can it be said that demands towards electricity dues are not barred by limitation for purposes of recovery.