Supreme Court bars recovery of electricity dues not shown as arrears

The case concerns a dispute between a distribution licensee (Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitrans Nigam Ltd.) and a consumer regarding a demand for Minimum Consumption Guarantee Charges (MCGC) for an additional load that was offered but not accepted or supplied. The core issue is whether this demand, raised years after the events, is valid under the limitation provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Who it concerns: Appellant: Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitrans Nigam Ltd. (Distribution Licensee); Respondents: Vidut Lokpal, Uttar Pradesh, and the consumer (Respondent No. 3); Bench: Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria.

What the court decided

• The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal filed by the Appellant.
• The Court held that the demand dated 13.02.2007 is barred by the limitation period under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
• The Court relied on the principle that the two-year limitation period restricts the right to disconnect supply unless the sum was continuously shown as recoverable as arrears in bills.
• The Court noted that the Appellant did not seriously press the challenge to Regulation 8 of the 2007 Regulations and did not re-examine the High Court's view on that specific point.

Also in the document

• The judgment is marked as 'NON-REPORTABLE'.
• The Court cited the precedent 'Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitrans Nigam Limited and Another v. Rahamatullah Khan' to support its view on limitation.
• The High Court had previously found that the consumer did not consent to the additional load and that no bill was issued for it during the relevant period, meaning it was not continuously treated as arrears.