Electricity supply disconnection for non-payment upheld where time-barred arrears were still treated as "due" and dispute was not bona fide.

Under section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, "due" was construed broadly to include sums owed for electricity supply even if part of the claim would be time-barred in a civil suit, and refusal to pay such a demand could amount to "neglect" justifying discontinuance. The consumer's objection was held not to be a bona fide dispute because the facts underlying the revised meter calculation had been explained and were not genuinely contested, so section 24 could be invoked. The trial court's refusal to permit late constitutional amendments was upheld as a proper exercise of discretion.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, on the true construction of section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the expression "due" includes sums barred by limitation and the expression "neglects to pay" covers refusal to pay such a demand; (ii) whether the consumer's dispute was bona fide so as to prevent disconnection under section 24; and (iii) whether the trial court rightly refused the belated constitutional amendments sought in the petition.

Issue (i): whether, on the true construction of section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the expression "due" includes sums barred by limitation and the expression "neglects to pay" covers refusal to pay such a demand.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Electricity Act was treated as one under which the licensee remains bound by the duty to supply electricity under section 22, but is relieved of that obligation under section 24 when a consumer fails to pay sums owing for the supply already made. The word "due" was construed in its wider sense, meaning amounts owed or payable, and not confined to amounts recoverable in a civil suit within limitation. The preservation of the right to sue in section 24(1) did not limit the disconnection power to amounts recoverable in suit. Section 26(6) dealing with a dispute as to the correctness of a meter was held inapplicable because the claim was for multiplication of the meter reading by reason of the changed metering arrangement, not for correction of a faulty meter.

Conclusion: The word "due" includes the claimed arrears even if part of them would be time-barred in a suit, and section 24 is not confined to sums legally recoverable by civil action.

Issue (ii): whether the consumer's dispute was bona fide so as to prevent disconnection under section 24.

Analysis: The correspondence showed that the undertaking had fully explained the basis of the claim, including the replacement of the current transformers and the consequent need to multiply the reading by two. The consumer persisted in denying the relevant facts, treated the whole claim as time-barred, and sought to bring the matter within section 26 by disputing facts that were not truly in issue. In that setting, the Court held that the dispute was not genuine and not bona fide. A mere assertion of dispute does not prevent action under section 24 unless the dispute is real and honest.

Conclusion: The consumer's refusal to pay amounted to neglect within section 24, and the licensee was entitled to threaten discontinuance of supply.

Issue (iii): whether the trial court rightly refused the belated constitutional amendments sought in the petition.

Analysis: The proposed amendments raised new constitutional challenges under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g) and Articles 301 to 305 of the Constitution of India at a late stage of the hearing. Allowing them would have required further affidavits and notice to the Attorney General and would have materially delayed the proceedings. The proposed additions were also viewed as unnecessary and, in part, irrelevant to the real controversy. The refusal to permit amendment was therefore treated as a proper exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The refusal to allow the amendments was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the notice threatening disconnection was sustained, and the dismissal of the petition was affirmed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, a licensee may discontinue supply for non-payment of sums owing to it even if the consumer could resist part of the claim as time-barred in a civil suit, provided the consumer's objection is not a bona fide dispute.

---