1978 (2) TMI 221 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the claim of the B.E.S.T. Undertaking was barred by the law of limitation.
2. Whether the B.E.S.T. Undertaking was entitled to disconnect the electricity supply under Section 24 of the Electricity Act.
3. Whether there was a bona fide dispute regarding the date from which the new metering equipment was installed.
4. Whether the appellants had neglected to pay the charges claimed by the B.E.S.T. Undertaking.
5. Whether the amendments to the petition sought by the appellants were rightly rejected by the trial judge.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation of the Claim:
The appellants argued that a large portion of the claim by the B.E.S.T. Undertaking was time-barred, except for the period of three years immediately preceding the demand. They contended that under Section 24 of the Electricity Act, the Undertaking was not entitled to disconnect the supply for non-payment of a time-barred claim. The Court held that the word "due" in Section 24 should be given its ordinary, wider meaning, which includes all amounts owed, even if they are barred by the law of limitation. The Court reasoned that the provision in Section 24 is not a method of recovery but a relief for the licensee from the obligation to supply electricity to a defaulting consumer.

2. Right to Disconnect Under Section 24:
The Court examined Section 24 of the Electricity Act, which allows a licensee to disconnect supply if the consumer neglects to pay any charge for energy. The Court found that the provision should be strictly construed, but it does not limit the licensee's right to disconnect supply only to amounts within the period of limitation. The Court concluded that the B.E.S.T. Undertaking was entitled to disconnect the supply as the appellants had neglected to pay the charges due.

3. Bona Fide Dispute on Metering Equipment:
The appellants contended there was a bona fide dispute regarding the date from which the new metering equipment was installed, which should prevent the B.E.S.T. Undertaking from disconnecting the supply. The Court agreed with the trial judge that there was no bona fide dispute on this matter. The Electrical Inspector's report confirmed that the meter reading had to be multiplied by 2 to arrive at the actual consumption, supporting the Undertaking's claim.

4. Neglect to Pay Charges:
The Court considered whether the appellants had neglected to pay the charges claimed by the B.E.S.T. Undertaking. The Court found that the appellants' refusal to pay was not bona fide. The appellants' characterization of the entire claim as time-barred and their frivolous dispute over the meter replacement indicated a lack of genuine dispute. The Court held that the appellants had neglected to pay the charges, justifying the Undertaking's action under Section 24.

5. Rejection of Amendments to the Petition:
The appellants sought to amend their petition to include constitutional challenges and other contentions. The trial judge rejected these amendments as they were sought at a belated stage and would have required further affidavits and notices, delaying the hearing. The Court upheld the trial judge's decision, noting that the amendments were a device to prolong the proceedings and were not substantiated by the appellants' conduct or the substance of the amendments.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the B.E.S.T. Undertaking's right to disconnect the supply for non-payment of the charges due, including those barred by the law of limitation. The Court also upheld the trial judge's rejection of the appellants' amendments to the petition. The Court granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on the substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of "neglects to pay" and "due" under Section 24 of the Electricity Act.