Review146.2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.146/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6783/2009 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Petitioner Vs. Venco Breeding Forms Pvt.Ltd.& Anr. Respondents Mr.Aniket Nikam a/w Ms.Kavita Anchan i/b M.V.Kini & Co. for petitioner Mr.Gautam Ankhad for Res. CORAM-Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J. DATE 24th March,2011. (In Chamber at 2.30 p.m.) P.C. . This review petition is filed against the order dated 5th March, 2010 passed by this Court wherein it is held that the arrears u/s 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be recoverable if the dues are beyond the period of two years. The order was passed on the basis of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Awadesh S.Pandey Vs.Tata Power Co.Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR, 2007, Bombay,52 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-MSEB in the review petition relied on the Review146.2010 2 judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 7015/ 2008 M/s Rototex Polyester & Anr.Vs. Administrator , Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli (U.T.), Electricity Department, Silvassa & Ors. and submits that in which a different view than the decision of this Court in Awadesh Pandey (supra) is taken so the impugned order is to be reviewed .Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is gainfully reproduced. Section 56(1) “ Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days’ notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply Review146.2010 3 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 ; a) an amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or b) the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months, whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee. Section 56(2) - “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity. “ 2 The demand of arrears of the electricity charges more than two years from the consumption of the last date was made under Review146.2010 4 section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 in Awadesh Pandey , and in Rototex and also in the present case. 3 In Awadesh Pandey the Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that sub section (2) of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 only provides a limitation for the recourse to recovery by cutting of electricity supply for a period of two years from the date when such sum became due. Section 56 is a special mechanism which enables the M.S.E.B. to recover money expeditiously. Section 56(2) of the Act is to be read in contest with Section 56(1) which is in respect of “ disconnection of supply in default of payment “ . The due date on this background is considered as the date on which such sum became due . As per the plain interpretation of the section the first demand means “ from the date when such sum became first due”. 4 In Rototex the amount first time became due in July, 2003, but the claim from July, 2003 to July,2007 was raised by demand notice dated 3/10/2007 under section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Earlier in 2003 incorrect bill was raised . So it was held that the date of the revised / valid bill is to be considered Review146.2010 5 under section 56(2) of the Electricity Act would not come in the way of the respondent for recovering the said amount under the revised bill. 5 It is to be noted that the amount of arrears beyond two years is recoverable as per the provisions of Law and it cannot be restricted to two years. Therefore , the view taken in Rototex about the recovery of arrears cannot be said as conflicting view with the view taken in Awadesh Pandey wherein the scope of notice under section 56(1) of the Act is comprehensively dealt with. In Rototex Division Bench has not referred case of , Awadesh Pandey though it was decided earlier to Rototex and is also the reported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court . Therefore, the view taken by this Court while deciding the matter in hand is the best possible view based on the ratio laid down in Awadesh Pandey. 6 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner alternatively submitted that this matter be referred to the larger Bench . This request cannot be considered as no direct conflicting view is taken in above referred two judgments while deciding the Review146.2010 6 scope of section 56(1) and 56(2) of the Act. 7 In view of the above discussion the application for review is rejected. Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.