1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 847 OF 2010 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Petitioner Vs. TCI Industries Limited & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. H. Toor a/w. Mr. S.K. Chari a/w. Ms. K. Anchan i/b. M.V. Kini & Co., for Petitioner Mr. O.S. Kutty for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 11TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. : Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 1. The Petitioner has challenged the order and judgment dated 7 th December 2009 passed by Respondent No.2. The main challenge is in respect of the period of limitation and the acceptance thereto under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. The Petitioner has raised bills from time to time upon the occupants of the premises who are 185 employees of Respondent No.1 and who are consumers of the electricity. There have been certain disputes and an ultimate settlement between Respondent No.1 and the employees. The last date on which these bills were issued upon the consumers is shown to be in 2 about January 2001. The bills remained unpaid. The electricity was disconnected. Thereafter also, upon showing the delayed payment charges as well as the arrears, further bills have been drawn. 3. In view of the fact that the Petitioner has shown the amount payable continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges of electricity supplied to those consumers, the Petitioner rightly contends that the period of limitation of 2 years would not apply in this case. 4. Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.1 fairly accepts the proportion of law, but states that because he, as the Employer, has been called upon to pay the charges recoverable from the consumers who were his employees more than 10 years ago, he would not be in a position to know the precise amounts of consumption as also the arrears of each of them for which the bills were drawn upon the consumers. 5. The bills are issued by the Petitioner. They are issued upon the consumers. They are dispatched and posted to the place of consumption. They are deemed to have been received by the Consumers. The Petitioner is not required to show the duplicate bills. However the Petitioner is required to maintain accounts. The Petitioner has relied upon its ledger account. There is a dispute whether that was produced when the impugned order was passed. 6. The Petitioner was called upon to produce the account of each of the Consumers in this Court. The ledger account produced by the Petitioner 3 shows separate account maintained for separate meters showing the meter readings, the arrears, if any, the detailed payment charges, the current bill for each of the months since the date when the last payment was made upon the settlement between Respondent No.1 and its employees. 7. Though the Petitioners would be entitled to claim and recover the amounts even after the period of limitation under Section 56(2) of the Act because they have continuously shown the amounts recoverable as arrears of charges of electricity, the Petitioners would not be entitled to claim all of the arrears of the consumers from the Respondent No.1 who was their employer when the claim is made upon Respondent No.1. 8. This is in view of Rule 10(5) of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulation Commission (Electricity Supply Code and other conditions of supply) Regulations 2005 under which a new owner or occupier who has been transferred the premises by the erstwhile occupier would be bound to pay the charge that has been unpaid by the erstwhile owner or occupier subject to the proviso that for the transfer of connection not to a legal heir of the earlier consumer the amount payable upon the transfer is restricted to the maximum period of 6 months of the unpaid charges of the electricity supplied to suit premises. 9. Respondent No.1 is not the heir of the 185 employees who are the erstwhile occupiers of the premises where electricity was consumed and upon when the bills have been drawn. Respondent No.1, upon transfer of the bills, would be bound and liable to pay those charges for the bills 4 drawn upon the consumers from time to time over a period of years from about January 2000, but in respect of the arrears only for a period of 6 months of the unpaid charges. 10.The ledger account of the Petitioner shows the arrears, if any, of the consumers. The Ledger account also shows the current bill amount of the consumers. The current bill amount would be legitimately taken as the approximate amount which would be due and payable for consumption of electricity by those consumers for the earlier period, if they are in arrears. Hence, the Respondent No.1 would not be bound and liable to pay whatever are the arrears that are mentioned in the ledger account from which further amounts are calculated and amounts are claimed from Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 would be required to pay the arrears for only 6 months prior to that date. Those arrears can be reasonably computed by multiplying the current bill amounts of the consumers by 6. 11.Both Counsel agreed that that would be a reasonable amount payable by Respondent No.1 in addition to amount payable upon the bills raised for the last decade in respect of the each of the 185 employees, as also the delayed payment charges. 12.It is clarified that the amount payable would, therefore, be modified only in respect of the arrears shown against each of those consumers in the ledger accounts of the Petitioner. Instead of arrears shown in the bills as on January 2000 the amount of arrears would be re-calculated by showing the current bill amount multiplied by 6. The D.P charges would be 5 accordingly computed and paid. Consequently, the net bill amount payable from time to time would be shown for the entire decade from 2000 to 2010 i.e. till date. 13.The aforesaid computation shall be again made by the Petitioner as per the ledger statement, by modifying the amount of arrears as shown above. 14.The security deposit, if any, shall be deducted from the total amount so calculated for each consumer. The net amount so computed is agreed to be payable by Respondent No.1 within 4 weeks of the computation. 15.The General Manager Mr. S.R. Chitlange of Respondent No.1 undertakes to the Court to pay such modified amount to the Petitioner within 4 weeks of the computation. 16.The undertaking is accepted. 17.Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) 6