HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.27569 of 2005 Order: The first petitioner-educational society, which is running the second petitioner-college, has filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the demand made by the third respondent by letter dated 30-11-2005 bearing Lr.No.AAO/ERO- ACG/Hyd/JAO(a)/D.No.836/05, electricity consumption bill dated 06- 12-2005 and also intimation slip dated 24-12-2005. 2. The second petitioner-college is availing electricity service from the respondents, in the name of M/s.Anwar-Ul-Uloom College, vide service connection bearing No.C.1-541, initially under category VII (general purpose). As per the revised categorization notified in M.S.No.50 dated 30-06-2000, educational institutions run by individuals, non-government organizations or private trusts and their student hostels are classified under category II. In spite of such categorization, the petitioners were billed under category VII upto May, 2001; as such, for differential amount, in view of reclassification from category VII to category II, i.e. commercial, demand of Rs.1,74,250/- was made by proceedings dated 30-06-2001. Petitioners have questioned the said demand by way of W.P.No.15430 of 2001 and in W.P.M.P.No.19312 of 2001 they sought suspension of the impugned proceedings. When a learned single Judge of this court directed the petitioners to pay the demand covered by impugned proceedings, the matter was carried in appeal by way of W.A.No.1460 of 2001 and a Division Bench of this court passed the following order in the said appeal: “Keeping in view the fact that a substantial question of law has arisen as to whether the re-classification should be given a retrospective effect, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub served if the appellant is directed to pay the amount at the new rate from 1-7-2001, the date of passing the demand notice. There, however, cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in the event the writ petition is dismissed the writ petitioners – appellants shall pay the balance amount forthwith or as directed by the learned single Judge to the aforementioned extent. The appellants may file an undertaking before the learned single Judge in that regard. We however, make it clear that the revised payment should be made within a period of one week from date. With the aforementioned observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.” 3. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench, petitioners were to pay the demand and consumption charges as per category II with effect from 01-07-2001. In spite of the same, upto November, 2005, bills were collected only under category VII. In view of the same, impugned demand dated 30-11-2005 was issued by calculating the differential amount from 12/2001 to 11/2005 and the said amount is added in the consumption bill for the month of 11/2005 and an amount of Rs.8,48,253/- was demanded. When further clarification was sought, consumption charges intimation slip was given to the petitioners demanding an amount of Rs.13,24,946/-, which includes consumption bill for the month of 12/05 and the earlier bill issued for the differential amount plus surcharge amounting to Rs.4,08,805/- and also the differential amount in view of change from category VII to category II from the month of 12/2001 to 11/2005, to the tune of Rs.,8,48,253/-. 4. Though the said demand is made as per the re-categorization from the date of implementation, as per the orders issued by the Division Bench of this court referred above, the petitioners again filed the present writ petition questioning the said demand. 5. The impugned demand, consumption bill and intimation slip are mainly questioned on the ground that the same are not preceeded by any notice and they are barred by limitation in view of the provision under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is contended by Sri B. Nalin Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioners, that in view of the provision under Section 56(2) of the Electricity At, 2003, the respondents cannot recover the amount/impugned demand, as arrears are of more than two years old. 6. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the impugned demand is consequent to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this court; in that view of the matter, petitioners cannot again question the same in the writ petition. Further, it is submitted that as the supply of electricity to the petitioners is governed by the terms and conditions of supply framed under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the limitation prescribed under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 has no application to the dues, in view of re-categorization. 7. In view of the rival contentions on either side, in this case, it is to be noted that initially the electricity service provided to the petitioners was categorized under category VII and as per the revised categorization notified in M.S.No.50 dated 30-06-2000, it was re- categorized to category II. In that view of the matter, though it was obligatory on the part of the petitioners to pay the charges which are applicable to service connection categorized under category II, but, the petitioners continued to pay the bills under category VII. In view of the same, when, for the differential amount, demand was made, petitioners approached this court and filed writ petition and when interim orders were passed subject to payment of entire demanded amount, the matter was carried in appeal and in view of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this court in the writ appeal, petitioners were to pay the bills under category II with effect from 01-07-2001. In spite of the same, petitioners did not pay the bills as per rates applicable to revised category. As such, towards differential amount, Rs.8,48,253/- was demanded. In the impugned proceedings, it is made clear that the demand is made in view of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this court referred above. As the demand in question is pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.1460 of 2001, petitioners cannot question the consequential demand made in the impugned proceedings, by way of a writ petition again. Even with regard to the bill amount for the month of 12/2005 and the consequential electricity consumption bill dated 06-12-2005 and also intimation slip dated 24-12-2005, it is clarified that the said demands were inclusive of the current consumption month charges and the earlier arrears which includes surcharge and also the differential amount for the period upto 2005 in view of change in category, i.e. from category VII to category II. Although, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners, Sri B. Nalin Kumar, that recovery cannot be made in view of the provision under Section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, there is no basic pleading in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stating that arrears towards recovery were not shown continuously in the bills. In absence of such pleading, it is always open to recover the amount due, without reference to any limitation contemplated under Section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Further, in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Kusumam Hotels (P) Ltd. V. Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors.[1], it is held that limitation prescribed under Section 56 (2) of the Act has no application to the dues arising under Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Even in the instant case, it is to be noted that the service provided to the petitioners is governed by the terms and conditions of supply framed under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Hence, the plea of the petitioners that in view of limitation they are not liable to pay the impugned demand cannot be accepted. As much as the demand in question is consequent to the orders of the Division Bench of this court in the writ appeal referred above, as per which respondents were entitled to collect differential amount in view of re- categorization from category VII to category II, it is not open to the petitioners to question the impugned demand on the ground that it is not preceeded by any notice. Precisely, the impugned demand made is with reference to the arrears which are inclusive of the current consumption charges. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, for grant of relief as prayed for. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. However, the petitioner- society is granted six weeks time to clear the arrears payable by it. Till such time, no action shall be taken for disconnection of the petitioner’s service connection. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. July 23, 2009 MRR [1] 2008 AIR SCW 4638