Statutory bar on power disconnection for dues not continuously shown as recoverable for two years.

The petitioner, owning "Hotel Dynasty" in Guwahati, has been a consumer of the respondent (APDCL) since 1984.

On 02.07.2021, APDCL issued a supplementary bill for ₹18,66,000/- as a surcharge for the period of June 1991 to July 2005, based on an audit report from 2007-08.

The respondent claimed the petitioner had delayed payments for a bill raised in 1991, and though the principal was paid by 2006, the surcharge was missed due to a "bona fide error" discovered only in 2021.

APDCL issued a notice on 22.07.2021 threatening disconnection if the dues were not cleared within 15 days.

The petitioner challenged the bill and the threatened disconnection as a violation of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

1. Whether the respondent authorities can resort to Section 56(2) of the Act of 2003 to disconnect electricity supply on the basis of the bill dated 02.07.2021?

2. Whether the Court is required to interfere with or set aside the supplementary bill dated 02.07.2021?

The court primarily applied Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which governs the disconnection of supply for default in payment. Specifically, Section 56(2) prohibits the recovery of any sum due after two years from the date it "first became due" unless shown continuously as an arrear, and expressly bars disconnection after this period.

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. v. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla (2020), which clarified that while Section 56(2) bars the coercive remedy of disconnection after two years, it does not preclude the licensee from raising a supplementary demand or pursuing other legal modes of recovery.

The court noted Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the discovery of a mistake.

The court found that the monthly bills for the two years preceding the petition did not show the surcharge of ₹18,66,000/- as continuous arrears.

Consequently, under Section 56(2), the right of APDCL to disconnect the supply was extinguished because the sum was not "continuously shown as recoverable" for the statutory two-year period.

However, following the ratio in Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, the court reasoned that the underlying liability to pay does not vanish; the licensee is still permitted to issue a supplementary bill for a "bona fide mistake".

The question of whether the demand was time-barred for civil recovery involves questions of fact regarding the "discovery of mistake" under the Limitation Act, which the writ court declined to adjudicate.

The court declined to set aside the bill itself, affirming that the respondent has the authority to make supplementary demands.

The writ petition was disposed of with directions that APDCL may seek recovery through other legally permissible modes, and the petitioner may raise all legal defenses, including limitation, in such proceedings. The court clarified that this judgment does not enlarge the period of limitation for the respondent.