BAL KISHAN KEDIA Vs. CESC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners assail three notices all dated September 14, 2013 issued by the CESC authorities. By the three notices CESC authorities claim a sum of Rs.5,07,166/- for unauthorized use of electricity in respect of supply in favour of Sitaram Bal Kishan, HUF on the ground that the first petitioner is a member of the HUF and that the second petitioner and the third petitioner are related to the first petitioner and, therefore, there is a nexus between the petitioners and the erstwhile consumer.

(2.) Mr. Shubankar Nag learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, the impugned notices are not enforceable in view of the Limitation Act, 1963 as well as Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. According to him, the CESC authorities have a money claim which had arisen more than three years from the date of demand and, therefore, the CESC authorities cannot be allowed to enforce such time barred claim.

(3.) He relies on Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and submits that, Sub-Section (2) of Section 56 contemplates a period of two years from the date of claim or in the event of continuous bills being raised two years from the date of the last bill. In the instant case, he submits that, the theft of electricity is of 2003. The CESC authorities did not raise bills continuously from 2003 till the impugned demand and, therefore, the claim of the CESC authorities made in the impugned notices are barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. He relies upon 2012 Volume 5 Calcutta High Court Notes page 213 (CESC Limited v. Shiva Glass Company Limited) in this regard. He refers to the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2007 and in particular to Regulation 3.4.2 thereof and submits that, there is no nexus between the writ petitioners and the erstwhile consumer, the liability of whom was sought to be foisted upon the petitioners before Court. Although the first petitioner is a member of the HUF being the erstwhile consumer, neither the first petitioner nor the two other petitioners have any nexus with the erstwhile consumer. He relies upon All India Reporter 2007 Bombay page 52 (Awadwsh S. Pandey v. Tata Power Co. Ltd. & Ors.) and submits that, the threat contained in the impugned notices cannot be allowed to be carried out as the claim of the writ petitioners is barred under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and that there is no nexus between the writ petitioner and the erstwhile consumer. He relies upon 2004 Volume 11 Supreme Court page 1 (Indian Banks' Association, Bombay & Anr. v. Devkala Consultancy Service & Ors.) and submits that, the impugned notices are contrary to Regulation 3.4.2 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulation, 2007 and, therefore, are required to be quashed.