1 / 9 2026:CGHC:27482 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2291 of 2020 • Executive Engineer City Division (North), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited City Division Office, Gudhiyari, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. Electricity Ombudsman Chhattisgarh Electricity Regulatory Commission Premises Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Vikas Tank S/o Dilip Bhai Tank Aged About 40 Years Proprietor M/s Shriram Wires, Address Besides Amit Sales, T.V. Showroom, Street No. 1. Near Chandak Bada, Fafadih, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Apurva Ghore, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 03/07/2026 1. Petitioner-CSPDCL has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 To kindly set aside the order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Raipur (Annexure P-1) 10.2 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a power distribution company and respondent No. 2 is a consumer having PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 9 service number 1002108243 for 90HP and is running an industrial unit in the name of M/s Shriram Wires at Raipur (C.G.). When the inspection team inspected the premises of respondent No. 2 as surprise check/ inspection, the team found that along with meter installed with connection one Current Transformer (CT) of 200/5 was also there. According to inspection report, upon testing the electricity supply it was found that only half load of current supplied was being recorded and therefore the Multiplying Factor (MF) of 2 was required to be billed whereas billing was being done with MF-1. Based on the inspection report, supplementary bill was raised demanding Rs. 26,88,265. The supplementary bill raised by petitioner was put to challenge by respondent No. 2 before the Electricity Consumer Complaint redressal Forum, Raipur (henceforth referred as “Forum”). The application of claim submitted by respondent No. 2 before the Forum was decided vide order dated 28.03.2018 and claim of applicant/ respondent No. 2 (consumer) was rejected. This order was put to challenge again before the Electricity Ombudsman and the Ombudsman vide order 17.10.2018 remanded back the case vide order dated 28.03.2018 for deciding the claim of respondent No. 2 afresh on merits. The Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum vide order dated 04.02.2019 has again taken a decision on 04.02.2019 as directed by the Electricity Ombudsman and has rejected the entire claim. Against the rejection of order, respondent No. 2 again approached to the Electricity Ombudsman by filing statutory representation. The Ombudsman vide order dated 06.05.2019 once again remanded back the case to the Forum. The Forum again rejected the claim of respondent No. 2 vide order dated 09.10.2019. 3 / 9 However, made an observation that respondent No. 2 can make an application for making payment of supplementary demand in installments. The order dated 09.10.2019 was again put to challenge before the Electricity Ombudsman and vide impugned order the Ombudsman taking note of the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “Act of 2003”) has partly allowed the statutory representation and had held that the recovery of supplementary demand can be raised only for two years prior to the date of inspection. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the Electricity Ombudsman fell into error in recording a finding that the provisions under Section 56(2) of the Act of 2003 is applicable to the facts of the case. He submits that for raising supplementary bills, provisions under Section 56(2) of the Act has no application, but, it applies when the bill is raised and it is not recovered by the electricity distribution company. He submits that application of Section 56(1) and 56(2) came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the similar facts of the case of raising supplementary bills and it has been held that the provisions under Section 56(2) will not apply to the supplementary bills/ supplementary demand raised by the electricity company. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Assistant Engineer(D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs. Rahamatullah Khan @ Rahamjulla reported in (2020) 4 SCC 650 and Prem Cottex vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited reported in (2021) 20 SCC 200. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that according to 4 / 9 Chhattisgarh State Electricity Supply Code-2011 it is duty cast upon the electricity distribution company to inspect the meter and premises in regular intervals. In the facts of the case it is appearing that after installation of meter since 2008 employees of the electricity company has not inspected the meter and it was first inspected only in the year 2017 ie., after about 9 years of installation and therefore recovery in the garb of supplementary demand is erroneous and illegal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. So far as the submission of learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the electricity company could not have raised the supplementary demand of about 9 years as they have not inspected the premises of respondent No. 2 on which meter is installed in regular intervals is concerned, the order passed by the Ombudsman, which is subject matter of petition, wherein the Ombudsman has upheld the order of the Forum with regard to the irregularities to have been found in using of the electricity from the concerned meter is not put to challenge by respondent No. 2. The Ombudsman has not disturbed the finding of the Forum of report submitted by the meter inspecting team, but has accepted the said finding, however, the statutory representation submitted by respondent No. 2 has been partly allowed only observing that recovery in the facts of the case is permissible for the period of two years from the date when it became due. 6. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner with regard to application of Section 56(2) in the facts of the case is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner upon inspecting the 5 / 9 meter installed in the premises of respondent No. 2 in the month of March 2017, found irregularities committed in use of electricity from meter and the supplementary demand for the total period of consumption from the date of installation of meter is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar facts in case of Rahamatullah (supra), has observed thus: “7. The next issue is as to whether the period of limitation of two years provided by Section 56(2) of the Act, would be applicable to an additional or supplementary demand. 7.1. Prior to the coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Electricity Act, 1910 governed the law pertaining to the use and supply of electricity in India. Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 read as follows: “24. Discontinuance of supply to consumer neglecting to pay charge.—(1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum, other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may, after giving not less than seven clear days' notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply-line or other works being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied, and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer. (2) Where any difference or dispute which by or under this Act is required to be determined by an Electrical Inspector, has been referred to the Inspector before notice as aforesaid has been given by the licensee, the licensee shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section until the Inspector has given his decision: 6 / 9 Provided that the prohibition contained in this sub-section shall not apply in any case in which the licensee has made a request in writing to the consumer for a deposit with the Electrical Inspector of the amount of the licensee's charges or other sums in dispute or for the deposit of the licensee's further charges for energy as they accrue, and the consumer has failed to comply with such request.” 7.2. The Standing Committee of Energy in its Report dated 19-12-2002 submitted to the 13th Lok Sabha, opined that Section 56 of the 2003 Act is based on Section 24 of the 1910 Act. The Standing Committee further opined that a restriction has been added for recovery of arrears pertaining to the period prior to two years from consumers, unless the arrears have been continuously shown in the bills. Justifying the addition of this restriction, the Ministry of Power submitted that: “It has been considered necessary to provide for such a restriction to protect the consumers from arbitrary billings.” 7.3. In Swastic Industries v. Maharashtra SEB [Swastic Industries v. Maharashtra SEB, (1997) 9 SCC 465] this Court while interpreting Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 held that : (SCC p. 467, para 5) “5. It would, thus, be clear that the right to recover the charges is one part of it and right to discontinue supply of electrical energy to the consumer who neglects to pay charges is another part of it.” (emphasis supplied) 7.4. Sub-section (1) of Section 56 confers a statutory right to the licensee company to disconnect the supply of electricity, if the consumer neglects to pay the electricity dues. This statutory right is subject to the period of limitation of two years provided by sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act. 7.5. The period of limitation of two years would commence from the date on which the electricity charges became “first due” under sub-section (2) of Section 56. 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. If the licensee company were to be allowed to disconnect 7 / 9 electricity supply after the expiry of the limitation period of two years after the sum became “first due”, it would defeat the object of Section 56(2). 8. Section 56(2), however, does not preclude the licensee company from raising a supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period of two years. It only restricts the right of the licensee to disconnect electricity supply due to non-payment of dues after the period of limitation of two years has expired, nor does it restrict other modes of recovery which may be initiated by the licensee company for recovery of a supplementary demand. 9. x x x 9.1 x x x 9.2 x x x 9.3. In the present case, the period of limitation would commence from the date of discovery of the mistake i.e. 18-3-2014. The 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 under sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act.” 7. In the case of Prem Cottex (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon the decision in case of Rahamatullah (supra) has observed thus: “23. In other words, the negligence on the part of the licensee which led to short billing in the first instance and the rectification of the same after the mistake is detected, is not covered by sub-section (1) of Section 56. Consequently, any claim so made by a licensee after the detection of their mistake, may not fall within the mischief, namely, “no sum due from any consumer under this section”, appearing in sub-section (2). 24. The matter can be examined from another angle as well. Sub-section (1) of Section 56 as discussed above, deals with the disconnection of electric supply if any person “neglects to pay any charge for electricity”. The question of neglect to pay would arise only after a demand is raised by the licensee. If the demand is not raised, there is no occasion for a consumer to neglect to pay any charge for electricity. Sub-section (2) of Section 56 has a non obstante clause with respect to 8 / 9 what is contained in any other law, regarding the right to recover including the right to disconnect. Therefore, if the licensee has not raised any bill, there can be no negligence on the part of the consumer to pay the bill and consequently the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) will not start running. So long as limitation has not started running, the bar for recovery and disconnection will not come into effect. Hence the decision in Rahamatullah Khan [Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Rahamatullah Khan, (2020) 4 SCC 650] and Section 56(2) will not go to the rescue of the appellant. 25. Therefore, we are of the view that the National Commission was justified in rejecting the complaint and we find no reason to interfere with the order [Prem Cottex v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Consumer Complaint No. 156 of 2009, order dated 1- 10-2009 (NCDRC)] of the National Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, since the appellant has already paid 50% of the demand amount pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court on 19-8-2014 [Prem Cottex v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1827] , we give eight weeks' time to the appellant to make payment of the balance amount. There shall be no order as to costs.” 8. Facts of the case in hand are that the respondent No. 2 had taken electricity connection in the year 2008. When team of electricity department made surprise inspection of the premises of respondent No. 2 and the meter installed in March, 2017, found that the respondent No. 2 is using the electricity by adopting illegal means. In report, it is mentioned that the use of two units of electricity is recording in the meter as one unit. Petitioner thereafter made supplementary demand for the entire period of consumption of balance units which was not raised earlier because of the illegal act of the respondent No. 2. The bill amount for the first time is demanded in the month of March 2017. 9 / 9 9. In the above facts of the case, submission advanced by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the period of limitation for recovery of bill would be only two years as held by Ombudsman, is correct, is not sustainable in the facts of the case. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has made an attempt to make submission that the demand is not acceptable because the petitioner has not inspected the meter or premises of respondent No. 2 periodically because the finding of Forum about irregularities committed in use of electricity by respondent No. 2, upheld by the Ombudsman is not put to challenge by respondent No. 2. 11. From the aforementioned discussed facts and the decision referred above of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that there is no application of Section 56(2) of the Act of 2003 to the supplementary demand raised. The provision is clear, and it bars recovery of sum after two years it becomes due. Amount or bill amount would become due from the date it is demanded by issuing bill or any other mode. 12. For the foregoing discussion made, in the opinion of this Court, the Electricity Ombudsman committed error of law in restricting the recovery of amount of supplementary demand beyond the period of two years only is not sustainable and accordingly it is set aside, and order passed by the Forum is affirmed. 13. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE