Hon'ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This petition is directed against the assessment order dated 3.10.1997 seeking to realize enhanced electricity charges for the period between November, 1991 to August, 1995 and a further mandate to restore the electricity connection.
The petitioner is a limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act. It had nine different electricity connections for its establishment where the schedule of payment was under the schedule rate of LMV-2. It is pleaded that on the representation of the concerned Superintending Engineer he applied for amalgamation of all the said connections and for being issued one connection for which he deposited the entire security and other charges. Thereafter the Executive Engineer issued an office memorandum dated 13.9.1990 ordering amalgamation of all the nine connections into a single connection and in pursuance thereof an agreement was duly executed between the parties on 26.10.1991 providing for tariff under LMV-2. The petitioners continued to deposit the electricity bills without any objection. However, vide letter dated 18.4.1995 the Executive Engineering informed the petitioner that due to certain amendments in the rate schedule, he was required to enter into a fresh agreement and would be charged at the rate of HV-2 and he was directed to complete the formalities within seven days. In consonance thereof the petitioner entered into a fresh agreement by which the rate schedule HV-2 was made applicable to the petitioner electricity connection. It appears that on the basis of an audit objection vide letter dated 4.9.1997 the petitioner was asked to pay the difference in the tariff between LMV-2 and HV-2 w.e.f. September, 1991 to August, 1995 amounting to Rs. 4,83,225.80/- and on an objection being raised by it he deputed his authorize representative to visit the office of the Executive Engineer on 1.10.1997 but he was not available and therefore, the representative sought a date for 21.10.1997 for hearing. It also appears that even prior to it the impugned order was passed and his electricity connection was disconnected forcing him to prefer the present writ petition.
An interim order was passed under which certain amounts have been deposited by the petitioner and the electricity connection has been restored.
It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that in pursuance of the agreement dated 26.10.1991 read with the agreement dated 3.8.1995, the petitioner could not be charged HV-2 rate schedule and that too without reasonable opportunity.
To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the HV-2 rate schedue had been made applicable from 26.10.1991 in view of the agreement of 3rd of August, 1995. He has relied upon the agreement itself which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the counter affidavit.
A perusal of the said annexure shows that a fresh agreement was entered on 3.8.1995 whereby the petitioner was to deposit the dues under rate schedule HV-2. In Clause C originally the schedule was made applicable from 26.10.1995 but by cutting and overwriting the word "five" has been replaced by word "one". Learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in pointing out that the said alteration is not evidenced by signatures of the petitioner and even the date on which it was done is not mentioned.
In the opinion of the Court, the said agreement applied only from 26.10.1995 and by interpolation the date has been changed to 1991. Thus, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct.
Even otherwise, the demand for electricity dues of a period of more than three years would be barred by Article 16 of the Limitation Act.
For the reasons above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned demand notice dated 3.10.1997 and consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. Any amount paid by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order by this Court shall be refunded/adjusted.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.1.2010 AK