IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.329 OF 2008 IN REVIEW PETITION NO.811 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4871 OF 2008 Prashant Engineering Works ... Appellant Versus The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. and others. ... Respondents Mr. Balasaheb Deshmukh for the appellant. Mr. P.P. Chavan i/by M/s. Little & Co. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. R.M. Patne, Assistant Government Pleader for the State. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 17TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. On 13th January, 2000, admittedly, the premises of the appellant were inspected by the Chief Engineer wherein they found that there was excess load as against the sanctioned load. The case of the consumer was that some machines were lying without being connected and as such they should not have been calculated while computing load. After serving notice on 24.9.2008, the electric supply was disconnected. 3. This action of the respondent was challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition No.4871 of 2008 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 15th July, 2008. The appellant preferred Review Petition No.84 of 2008 which also was dismissed vide order dated 24th September, 2008, resulting in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Principally two contentions have been raised before us. One is that the provisions of section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 were applicable and bill over period of two years cannot be charged and secondly, that no notice was served upon the appellant in relation to the amounts for which now disconnection has been effected. 5. We may notice that in the proceedings before ombudsman detailed order on 29th May, 2008 was passed where the bill raised by the respondents were reduced considerably and after due computation, the final demand was determined. In para 3 of the order dated 29th May, 2008, the stand of the appellant was noticed and accordingly, the detailed order has been passed with reason. Besides that we may also notice that the electricity admittedly was disconnected in December, 2000 and therefore, correctly the rates of that period and law in force at that time will be applicable. We find no merit. Dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.