M/S. SWASTIC INDUSTRIES versus MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 532 · Decided: 24-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M/S. SWASTIC INDUSTRIES 
v. 
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
JANUARY 24, 1997 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Indian Electricity Act, 1910/Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948: 
S. 24/ S. 60-A-Electricity supply-Demand by Electricity Board-Con-
C sumer neglecting to pay-Held : The mere fact that a right is given to the 
Electricity Board to file suit and limitation prescribed therefore, does not take 
away the 1ight conferred on it to make demand for payment of charges-Con-
sumer neglecting to pay the same-Board has power to discontinue the supply 
or cut-off the supply. 
D 
M/s. Bharat Barrel & Dmm Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The 
E 
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Anr., AIR (1978) Born. 369 
approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 765 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.96 of the National Con-
sumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A. No. 520 of 
1995. 
Shankar Divate, Naresh Kaushik and Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik for the • 
F 
Petitioner. 
G 
A.S. Bhasme for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The petitioner is canvassing the correctness of the decision of the 
National Consumers' Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, made 
on August 30, 1996 in Appeal No. 520/95. 
The admitted position is that the respondent-Electricity Board had 
issued a supplementary Bill to the petitioner on February 5, 1993 demand-
H ing payment of Rs. 3,17,659. The petitioner objected to the bill by his letter 
532 
.... 
c
)- . 
--'. 
MIS SWASTIC INDUSTRIES v. M.S.E.B. 
533 
dated February 16, 1993. However, when letter was issued for payment of A 
the said amount, the petitioner paid it under protest and filed the com-
plaint before the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission. The 
Commission by order dated May 24, 1995 allowed the complaint and held 
that the claim was barred by limitation of 3 years. Feeling aggrieved, the 
Electricity Board filed an appeal. The National Commission relying upon 
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Mis. Bharat 
Barrel & Dmm Manufactwing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Municipal Corporation of 
Greater Bombay & Anr., AIR (1978) Born. 369 has held that there is no 
limitation for making the demand by way of supplementary bill. Section 24 
B 
of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 gives power to the Board to issue such 
demand and to discontinue the supply to a consumer who neglects to pay C 
the charges. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 
Section 60-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 prescribes a limitation 
of 3 years for the Board to institute any suit, after its constitution, for 
recovery of the arrears. Thereby the limitation of 3 years is required to be 
observed. The Board in negation of Section 60A of Supply Act cannot be D 
permitted to exercise the power under Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 
1910. We find no force in the contention. 
Section 60-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 envisages the 
enlargement of the period of limitation in certain circumstance, i.e., inter-
vening period of the constitution of the Board, and the right of the State 
to recover the amounts due to the State for consumption of electricity 
delegating the power to the Board. In that behalf, clauses (i) and (ii) 
therein operate as under : 
"(i) where it has been constituted before the commencement of 
the Electricity (Supply) Amendment Act, 1966 (8 of 1966) within 
three years· of such commencement; and 
(ii) where it has been constituted after such commencement, within 
three years of its constitution." 
This is an enabling provision to recover the amounts due by way of 
suit despite the fact that Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act clearly 
empowers the Board to demand and collect any charge from the Consumer 
and collect the same towards the electrical energy supplied by the Board 
E 
F 
G 
in the following trrms : 
H 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
"Where any per3on neglects to pay any charge for energy or any 
sum, other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee 
in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may, after 
giving not less than seven clear days notice in writing to such person 
and without prejudice to his light to recover such charge or other 
sum by suit, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or discon-
nect any electric supply-line or other work, being the property of 
the licensee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.