PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY Vs. THER ASST. ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in both these writ petitions are against the revenue recovery steps initiated for realising arrears of electricity charges due to the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). In W.P. (c) No. 28558/2013 there is also challenge against the validity of Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (KRR Act for short). In W.P (c) No. 17300/2013 challenge is raised on the ground of bar under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

(2.) EVENTHOUGH this court is not prima facie satisfied to entertain challenge on the question of validity of Section 71 of the KRR Act or on the challenge based on Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, there is a common issue involved as to whether the revenue recovery can be initiated after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963.

(3.) IN the above context, dispute arises as to what is the period of limitation applicable to KSEB. Is it the period of 3 years prescribed under Article 113 or the period of 30 years prescribed under Article 112 of Part IX and X in the schedule appended to the Limitation Act, is the question. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Article 112 is applicable only with respect to suits filed by or on behalf of State Government. The KSEB, eventhough is a 'State' coming within Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is not a Government and the provisions of Article 112 will not apply, is the contention. It is contended that SRO No. 169/69 issued under Section 71 of the KRR Act making provisions of the said Act applicable to KSEB cannot have any effect on the period of limitation. Such notification or provisions of the KRR Act do not create any new right on KSEB to recover any amount which remains time barred. In support of the said proposition, the petitioners placed heavy reliance on a recent decision of this court in Siddique V. Tahsildar : (2013 (2) KLT 544). A learned judge of this court had followed dictum contained in the apex Court decision in Kalliyanikutty's case (cited supra) to hold the question in favour of the petitioners.