Electricity dues and disconnection limits under limitation law and revenue recovery rules

Electricity dues claimed against a lessee were treated as time-barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 because recovery notices came after the two-year period from when the sum first became due, and later notices could not revive limitation once supply had been disconnected and the agreement terminated. The text also states that, after the respondents invoked the statutory revenue recovery mechanism for the same dues, they could not additionally use disconnection under Section 56(1) as a coercive recovery tool, absent bona fide billing error. Disconnection was therefore not permissible, while recovery through the revenue recovery process could continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether electricity dues arising from the lessee's default could be enforced by disconnection of the petitioner's service connection after the period prescribed under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 had expired; (ii) Whether, after initiating recovery through the Revenue Recovery Act, the respondents could still resort to disconnection of the petitioner's supply for the same dues.

Issue (i): Whether electricity dues arising from the lessee's default could be enforced by disconnection of the petitioner's service connection after the period prescribed under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 had expired.

Analysis: The dues related to electricity consumption in 2013, with the first recovery notice issued on 22.08.2014 and later notices issued in 2019. Section 56(2) bars recovery after two years from the date when the sum first became due, unless the amount is continuously shown as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied. After disconnection of supply and termination of the agreement, no fresh electricity bills could accrue, and the later notices could not extend the already lapsed limitation period.

Conclusion: The attempt to recover the dues by disconnection was barred by limitation and was not sustainable against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether, after initiating recovery through the Revenue Recovery Act, the respondents could still resort to disconnection of the petitioner's supply for the same dues.

Analysis: The respondents had already adopted the statutory recovery mechanism under Section 6(2) of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 by forwarding the matter for recovery as arrears of land revenue. Once that route was invoked, coercive disconnection under Section 56(1) could not also be used for the same demand, especially when the case was not one of bona fide error or mistaken billing.

Conclusion: Disconnection of the petitioner's service connection for the lessee's dues was not permissible, though recovery through the Revenue Recovery Act could continue.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the threatened disconnection was set aside, while the respondents were left free to pursue recovery through the revenue recovery process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where electricity dues are time-barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the licensee cannot enforce them by coercive disconnection, and once the statutory revenue recovery mechanism has been invoked, disconnection cannot be used as an additional recovery tool for the same dues.

---