# M/S. SWASTIC INDUSTRIES v. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

- **Citation:** [1997] 1 S.C.R. 532
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1997-01-24
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-s-swastic-industries-v-maharashtra-state-electricity-board-15267
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Indian Electricity Act, 1910/Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948:
S. 24/ S. 60-A-Electricity supply-Demand by Electricity Board-ConC 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-Consumer 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.

## Text

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-ConC 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-Consumer 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 Consumers 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 demandH 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 complaint 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., intervening 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 disconnect any electric supply-line or other work, being the property of
the licensee, through which energy may be supplied, and may
discontinue the supply 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."
B
c
It would, thus, be clear that the right to recover the charges is one
part of it and right to discontinue supply of electrical energy to the
consumer who neglects to pay charges is another part of it. The right to
file a suit is a matter of option given to the licensee, the Electricity Board.
D Therefore, the mere fact that there is a right given to the Board to file the
suit and the limitation has been prescribed to file the suit, it does not take :
away the right conferred on the Board under Section 24 to make demand ·
for payment of the charges and on neglecting to pay the same. They have
the power to discontinue the supply or cut-off the supply, as the case may
be, when the consumer neglects to pay the charges. The intendment
E appears to be that the obligation are mutual. The Board supply electrical
1 energy and the consumer is under corresponding duty to pay the sum due
towards the electricity consumed. Thus the Electricity Board, having exercised that power, since admittedly the petitioner had neglected to pay the
bill for additional sum, was right in disconnecting the supply without
recourse to filing of the suit to recover the same. The National Commission,
\.
F therefore, was right in following the judgment of the Bombay High Court
and allowing the appeal setting aside the order of the State Commission.
Moreover, there is no deficiency of service in making supplementary
demand for escaped billing. There may be negligence or collusion by
subordinate staff in not properly recording the reading or allowing pilferage to the consumers. That would be deficiency of service under the
G Consumer Protection Act. We do not find any illegality warranting interference.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed
H G.N.
Petition dismissed.