Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

ASSISTANT ENGINEER (D1), AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED & ANR. vs. RAHAMATULLAH KHAN ALIAS RAHAMJULLA

SCR Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 929
Year/Volume: 2020/ Volume 2
Date of Judgment: 18 February 2020
Petitioner: ASSISTANT ENGINEER (D1), AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.
Disposal Nature: Appeals Disposed Off
Neutral Citation: 2020 INSC 205
Judgment Delivered by: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
Respondent: RAHAMATULLAH KHAN ALIAS RAHAMJULLA
Case Type: CIVIL APPEAL /1672/2020
Order/Judgment: Judgment
1. Headnote

Electricity Act, 2003: s. 56(2) – Disconnection of supply in default of payment – Term ‘first due’ in s.56(2) – Meaning of – Commencement limitation period of two years, when – Held: Electricity charges would become “first due” only after the bill is issued to the consumer, even though the liability to pay may arise on the consumption of electricity – Period of limitation of two years would commence from the date on which the electricity charges became “first due” u/s. 56(2) – This provision restricts the right of the licensee company to disconnect electricity supply due to non- payment of dues by the consumer, unless such sum has been shown continuously to be recoverable as arrears of electricity supplied, in the bills raised for the past period – Furthermore, s. 56(2) does not preclude the licensee company from raising an additional or supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period u/s. 56(2) in the case of a mistake or bona fide error – However, licensee company cannot take recourse to the coercive measure of disconnection of electricity supply, for recovery of the additional demand – As per s. 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act in case of a mistake, the limitation period begins to run from the date when the mistake is discovered for the first time – On facts, licensee company discovered the mistake of billing under wrong tariff Code on 18.03.2014 and raised an additional demand on 18.03.2014 for the period July, 2009 to September, 2011 – Limitation period of two years u/s. 56(2) had by then already expired – Period of limitation would commence from the date of discovery of the mistake – Licensee company may take recourse to any remedy available in law for recovery of the additional demand, but is barred from taking recourse to disconnection of supply of electricity u/s. 56(2) – Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 17(1)(c).

2. Case referred
3. Act
  • Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003)
  • Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)
4. Keyword
  • Electricity Act
5. Equivalent citation
    Citation(s) 2020 (4) SCC 650 = 2020 (4) Suppl. SCC 650 = 2020 (2) JT 272 = 2020 (2) Suppl. JT 272 = 2020 (4) SCALE 36