M/s. Neelgir PSPCL and o Present: 1. order dated Ombudsman dated 07.10. was raised fo 2. the demand that the dem (g) (1) of th 102.10 and 1 ‘the ESIM’) there is an i licencee can of checking. giri Steels Pvt. Ltd. Versus d others ! "# Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate fo Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. H.S. Jugait, Advocate for re **** $" Through the instant writ petiti ed 19.07.2016 (Annexure P=8), an, Electricity Punjab, in appeal N 0.2015 (Annexure P=2), through w for a period of three years. Learned counsel for the petition d notice, and the order (supra), pa emand notice has been raised in co the Supply Code, as well as in c d 102.11 of Electricity Supply Ins ’) , therefore, the said demand is issue regarding application of a an only raise a demand within the g. %&'()'*+,+(-"". …Petitioner us ...Respondents e for the petitioner. ate r respondent No.4. tition, a challenge is thrown to t ), passed by the respondent No. l No.18 of 2016, and demand noti h which the demand of Rs.8,34,633 tioner, in order to throw challenge passed by the Ombudsman, subm contravention of the Regulation 21 contravention of Regulation 104 Instructions Manual, 2011 (for sho is totally illegal, whereas, if at a a wrong multiplier, the distributi e period of six months from the da o the o.4= otice 633/= ge to mits 21.4 04.1, short t all, ution date MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.17 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 3. , are as un 28.09.2015, was being ra checking, it 150/5 MP, (multiplier f 7/2012, the considering when the err and the bill w 4. attention of prescribes distribution every six mo months, ther amount, bey that the erro and the petit huge amoun that all the e install the m the wrong m indicated in The facts, qua which, there is no under; i) the energy record of the 5, by the authorities concerned, an raised to the petitioner, by applyi it was found that the connection , and the meter is having 100/ r factor), which comes to 1.5, w he bill was prepared by applying g the error, the account was ordere error was first occurred, i.e. dated ll was accordingly raised to the pet Learned counsel for the petitio of this Court towards the Regul the checking schedule and im n licencee, to check the supply c months, to submit that the checkin herefore, the petitioner cannot be eyond six months, in case there w rror which has occurred, is on the etitioner cannot be held for their d unt, that too after expiry of six mon e efforts were required to be mad meter, having the CTs of the sam multiplying factor, and the mu in red ink, and for that, he has s no wrangle among the parties to t the petitioner was checked on dat and it was found that the energy b lying a wrong multiplier. As per t ion of the petitioner is CT/PT wi 0/5 MP, and as per the net M. , whereas, as per the record fro ng net M.F. of 0.66, and therefor ered to be overhauled, from the da ed 07/2012, and upto dated 08/201 petitioner. itioner, at the very outset, draws t ulation 104.1 of the ESIM, whi imposes an obligation upon t y connections/meter, atleast once king was not done since the last s be held liable to pay the asked f e was any error. He further subm the part of the distribution licence default, and be asked to pay such onths. Furthermore, he also subm ade by the distribution licencee, ame current ratio, so as to elimina ultiplying factor is required to as placed reliance upon Regulati o the dated bill r the with M.F. from fore, date 015, s the hich the ce in st six d for mits ncee, ch a mits e, to inate to be ation MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.17 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 102.10 and Regulation 2 to submit th correction of 5. Regulations, no applicabi the demand the said erro at the time o made in the compliance as the multip he submits t imposes rest beyond two distribution l the other le 21.1.5, as no of the mete multiplier fa continued”. 6. the both the d 102.11 of the ESIM. Finally, n 21.4 (g), which deals with overh t that even the time limit prescr of the overhauling of the consume Learned counsel for the distri ns, which are referred by the learn ability at all, as it is neither the ca d has been raised upon the meter rror has occurred purely on accoun e of issuance of the energy bills, he energy account record of the p ce of Regulation 102.11 of the ES ltiplying factor was shown in the a ts that the provisions of the Sectio estriction to disconnect the conne o years, but that does not restrict n licencee concerned, to recover th legal remedies. He over and ab notified on 05.11.2014, carries a s eters is not involved, and it is factor, the account shall be overh Before this Court gauge the leg he parties concerned, and the prim y, he has placed reliance upon t erhauling of the consumer accoun scribed therein, is six months, f mer accounts. stribution licencee submits that t arned counsel for the petitioner, h case of any defect in the meter, n ter checking. He further submits th unt of applying of wrong multiplie , and only the correction has be petitioner. He also submits that t ESIM, has categorically been mad e account with a red ink. In additio tion 56 of the Electricity Act, 200 nection of a consumer, for an err ict the power, and entitlement of t r the amount, by availing recourse above, submits that the Regulati a specific note that “where accura is a case of application of wro erhauled for the period this mista legality of submissions, as raised ime issue raised by the petitioner, n the unts, , for t the , has nor that plier, been t the ade, ition, 003, error f the se to ation racy rong stake d by er, to MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.17 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment the effect th effected on concerned. A and 102.11 o t that beyond the period of six on account of deficiency on the At this stage, it is apt, to reprodu of the ESIM, which are extracted ! #$ ( ',"""-" . & / , .0,"0 $ .1' ! ' , !-" &/ $3 % ! ! %' , !4"" .' & / , .0,"0 % ! ( 2 ! %' $%&'( ' $ # $ $ $ !"%,"- *(% / ix months, the recovery cannot he part of the distribution licenc oduce the Regulations 104.1, 102. ted hereinafter := !"# !"! %&$'! ##$ ( ( ! "* + ! .' "0,' %( $ %&$! $ 23)( !" .' ,.0,"0,'%( * ) %( 3 ' "0,' %( $ * $ %( ')*+(%&(%)# $ 4, $ $$ (! *(%)& %) . (% & t be ncee 2.10 # ) $ * ) 3 $ $ 5 MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.17 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 7. imposes an checking w connections, leaset once i # also imp make all effo eliminate the with a red in due to non=a 8. the ratio of m to enter the m 9. distribution l case, the me factor (MF) transpires th $4, 4,*$ ( $ * $ ( # # % % # % 4,!7 The study survey of the above n obligation upon the distributio with regard to the all DS/N ns, with load upto 50KW in the e in every six months. Further, th imposes an obligation upon the dis fforts to install the meters and CTs the multiplying factor, and the mu ink, where the meters and CTs of availability of matching CTs. Here is the case where admitte f meter, and the CTs, requiring th e multiplying factor in the red ink. During the course of the arg n licencee has placed on record th meter was installed on dated 10.0 F) of 1.5 has been mentioned in that the compliance of Regulatio . 8%# $ $ # $ ( # .$ ' #!6 $!"!""-" # ( %$ (! ( %($ ve Regulation 104.1, reflects that tion licencee concerned, to condu /NRS/industrial and Bulk Supp he jurisdiction of J.E. concerned, , the Regulations 102.10 and 102. distribution licencee concerned, sh Ts of the same current ratio, so as multiplying factor is to be indicat of different current ratio is install ittedly, there is a difference betwe the distribution licencee concerne nk. arguments, learned counsel for t the copy of challan, as in the insta 0.03.2000, wherein, the multiplyi in the red ink. From the facts, ation 102.11 #, has already be ( # ( $ hat it duct ply d, at 2.11 shall as to cated alled ween rned, r the stant lying ts, it been MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.17 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment made, where account reco a wrong mu in the deman 10. petitioner to non=complia licencee con 11. 21.4 (g), to consumers c of six month been tested a laboratory o testing the m two years ra above regula view that the defects in th meter, rather ereas, since it is not the case of m cord of the petitioner was checked ultiplier, the energy bill was bein and notice and the same is extracte 9" # 4, ;<( $ 3* (# $(% Therefore, the argument raised to the extent that the demand whi liance of above extracted provision oncerned, is devoid of any merits. Further, the petitioner has plac to submit that the electricity c s can be compared in accordance nths immediately preceding the d d at site, or the date the defective m of the licencee, or the date of rec e meter in the laboratory, and the raised by the distribution licence ulations. This Court has perused th the same is not applicable to the p the meter, and the instant case, i her as observed above, it is related f meter checking, rather, the ener ed and it was found that by applyi eing raised. This is clearly reflect acted hereinafter := $ $ :3 3;, 3 $!==! 3!4, $ $ 3!> ($ 3 $ # % !7 sed by the learned counsel for t hich has been raised, on account ions of regulation by the distributi ts. laced reliance upon the Regulati charges for all the categories e with the test results for the peri e date of test in case the meter h e meter is removed for testing in t receipt of request from consumer f therefore, the demand for more th ncee, is not in accordance with t the regulation (supra), and is of t e present facts, as that relates to t , is not with regard to the defecti ted to an error in the energy accou ergy lying ected !> 3! r the nt of ution ation s of eriod r has n the r for than h the f the o the ctive ount MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.17 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment record of the 12. issue in que authorities c factor (MF) petitioner, si is concerned meter was f Regulation i 13. out any error the amount b 14. reference to sum is due f years, from t been shown electricity s electricity. 15. of the subm examine the extracted her the petitioner, maintained by the di Whether, the meter was period question. It is in fact, the recor s concerned, and thereupon, error F), has surfaced at the time of , since September 2011. However, ed, that deals either with the defec s found to be beyond the limit n is not applicable. Further, the learned counsel fo ror or regulation, which restrains t t beyond the period of six months Finally, the learned counsel to Section 56 of the Electricity A e from a consumer, same cannot be m the date, when such amount bec wn continuously as recoverable supplied, and the licencee shal This Court is of the considered missions, as raised by the learned the provision of Section 56 of th hereinafter := %) /0 1') ,(-+%2# 8 .3' ( $ $ 0 distribution licencee. iodically checked or not, is not t ord, which was examined, by t ror of applying a wrong multipli of issuing the energy bill to t er, the Regulation 21.4 of the ESI fective meters, or the issue where t it of frequency, therefore, the sa for the petitioner is unable to poi s the authority concerned, to recov hs. el for the petitioner has made y Act, 2003, to submit that where be recoverable after a period of tw ecomes due, unless such amount h le as arrears of charges, for t hall not cut off the supply of t red view that for better adjudicati ned counsel for the petitioner, let the Electricity Act, 2003, which %) )* '!,,"- *(!"% ( $( $ ( the the iplier the SIM e the said point over de a ere a f two has r the f the ation et us ch is "% )* ( MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.17 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 16. disconnect t charges for e commence f $ ( (($$ ? ( # * #( $ ( * $* (& ( @% * .'$ A #' ( # #$ ( %* $! .1' ( $#( # $ $ %# !7 The provision (supra), empow t the electricity connection on r electricity and arrears. The perio e from the date when the electricity 1 *$# $* *(%( (* % ( ( $ % # * # $ ( #$ ( **# (5 # *8 $$$$* ( $ $ $ %( ( (&$* ( # ( * $ $ $ #%# $#$ # ( owers the distribution licencee n account of non=payment of a riod of limitation of two years wou city charges becomes ‘first due’. T $ ( # $ $* ( $* to any ould . The MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.17 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment term ‘first 3'''%(% 7' ((+(% which the el even though Section 56(2 2003, and an in the first in is not cover Court finds Court, passe %%(&(&-( the judgmen st due’ has been explained by %&1245+&6 -!%6 +(%!""(8(("(' ((+5!""(9 electricity charges becomes ‘first gh liability would have arisen on 6(2) is relatable to the sum due u any negligence on the part of the t instance and rectification of the s vered by sub=Section (1) of Secti ds strength from the judgment re ssed in 7",,("):$;/)*$ &-((5"6%&((+ % ( ent are extracted hereinafter := “12. On the first two iss &2' 3+%4+3+&5 &( 6%5 % '3'*&7+*+&5$&2'(43+8%&+( &2' 4+33 +, 7%+,'; 45 & '3'*&7+*+&5*2%78',9(:3 &2'4+33+,+,,:';$'?'- %7+,'-(-*(-,:<6&+(-. in %2%<%&:33%2 2% limitation of two years w which the electricity c Section 56(2)”. This Co does not preclude the lice supplementary demand a limitation in the case of come to such a conclus Section 17(1)(c) of the decision of this Court i #&%&'()%;25%7%;', 13. Despite holding that first due only after the bi 6.9 of the SCC Report) 56(2) does not preclud additional or supplement y Hon’ble the Supreme Court %6%&((+"+% ( ()% ""(941$$20/, according irst due’ only after the bill is issue on consumption. The bar under su e under Section 56(1) of the Act he licencee, which led to short del e same after the mistake is detecte ction 56. For this observation, t rendered by the Hon’ble Suprem $<, titled 3=&+)%%>7 ( )&'9. The relevant paragraphs issues, this Court held that &2(:8 %7+,', (- &2' *(-,:<6&+(- &+(-&(6%59(:3;%7+,'(-3592 5 &2' 3+*'-,'' and that, therefor (:3;4'*(<'=)+7,&;:'>(-35%)& -&2(:82&2'3+%4+3+&59(:3;2% . On the third issue, this Court he 2%- (supra), that “the period s would commence from the date charges became first due und Court also held that Section 56( licensee from raising an additional d after the expiry of the period of a mistake or bonafide error. T lusion, this Court also referred the Limitation Act, 1963 and t t in %2%4+7 +,2(7' @ 7," ? ;',2. at electricity charges would becom bill is issued to the consumer (pa rt) and despite holding that Secti lude the licensee from raising ntary demand after the expiry of t rt in )%& ng to sued, sub= of delay cted, , this reme >7' hs of (:82 - () 2'- fore, %)&'7 2%?' held d of te on nder 56(2) al or d of r. To d to the ," ?," come (para ction g an f the MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.17 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment period of limitation pre mistake or bonafide erro this Court came to the co Section 56(2) is only electricity. In other word penultimate paragraph th to any remedy available additional demand, but i disconnection of supply u 16. Be that as it may, o due” would mean the da held in para 6.9 of %2 held that the period of l the date of discovery of t 9.1 to 9.3 of %2%<%&: allowing licensee to reco but not take recourse to d arise. But %2%<%&:33% paragraph that “the lice remedy available in law demand, but barred from of supply under subsectio 23. Coming to the secon Subsection (1) on Subse that the bottom line of S any person to pay any ch starts with the words “w any charge for electricity for electricity due from h 24. Subsection (2) uses $ ! & %' Subsection (2) is relatable This naturally takes us specifically with %" ,(- (- (& *)& " charge for electricity. ? ! &'!.'%)124' ,&')%),(-*)&"%& ")%,(&%)* 25. In other words, the licensee which led to sho the rectification of the sam not covered by Subsectio any claim so made by a l mistake, may not fall wit rescribed therein in the case of rror (Para 9.1 of the SCC Repor conclusion that what is barred und y the disconnection of supply rds, it was held by this Court in t that the licensee may take recour ble in law for the recovery of t t is barred from taking recourse y under Section 56(2). , once it is held that the term “fi date on which a bill is issued, ( %2%<%&:33%2 2%-) and once it f limitation would commence fro f the mistake (as held in paragrap %&:33%22%-), then the question cover the amount by any other mo o disconnection of supply would n 33%2 2%- says in the penultima licensee may take recourse to a law for recovery of the addition om taking recourse to disconnecti tion (2) of section 56 of the Act”. cond aspect, namely, the impact section (2) of Section 56, it is se f Subsection (1) is the negligence charge for electricity. Subsection ( “where any person neglects to p ity or any some other than a char him”. the words 9 $ $ %)7! Therefore, the bar und ble to the sum due under Section 5 us to Subsection (1) which dea ")%,(&%)*(,&') "%&%- or any sum other than ?(% ' )7& .- '%) / 4'%")%,(&%)* %&%-( )%(-%"')&( )*%"'. the negligence on the part of t short billing in the first instance a same after the mistake is detected, tion (1) of Section 56. Consequentl a licensee after the detection of the ithin the mischief, namely, “no su of a ort), nder y of n the ourse f the se to “first , (as it is from raphs n of ode d not mate any ional ction ct of seen ce of n (1) pay arge nder n 56. deals )%) an a /04 )*( &(- f the and ed, is ntly, their sum MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.17 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 17. accordingly, petitioner ca Section 56(2 18. passed by th be :62'3;" March 03, 20 Manpreet due from any consumer Subsection (2). 26. The matter can be well. Subsection (1) above, deals with supply if any person for electricity”. The ques only after a demand is demand is not raised, the to neglect to pay any char of Section 56 has a non what is contained in any recover including the righ licensee has not raised negligence on the par bill and consequently prescribed under Sub­sec long as limitation has for recovery and disco effect. Hence the dec Section 56(2) will not go In the instant case, the error su ly, the bill was rectified in the cannot take the refuge under the l 6(2) of the Act of 2003. Consequently, the instant writ the Ombudsman, as well as the de , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable er under this Section”, appearing e examined from another angle ) of Section 56 as discuss the disconnection of electr son “neglects to pay any char uestion of neglect to pay would ari is raised by the licensee. If t there is no occasion for a consum harge for electricity. Sub­section ( non­obstante clause with respect ny other law, regarding the right right to disconnect. Therefore, if t ed any bill, there can be part of the consumer to pay t ntly the period of limitati section (2) will not start running. S s not started running, the b sconnection will not come in decision in Rahamatullah Khan a go to the rescue of the appellant.” surfaced only in the year 2015, an e year 2015, itself. Therefore, t e limitation period prescribed und rit petition is ;+,<+,,';. The ord demand notice (supra), is ordered : Yes/No : Yes/No ng in le as ssed ctric arge arise f the umer n (2) ct to ht to if the no the ation . So bar into and , and , the nder order ed to MANPREET SINGH 2025.03.17 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment