ORDER
Abhay M. Naik, J.
1. Petitioner having obtained electricity connections bearing Nos. 1180 and 1555 from M.P. State Electricity Board (earlier known as M.P. Electricity Board) is a consumer of electricity. The premises of the petitioner was raided by the flying squad of the respondent Board and a bill was raised against him which was revised to Rs. 23,351/- and Rs. 16,045/-, vide demand notice dated 3-7-1998 marked as Annexure P-2. Pursuant thereto, the Executive Engineer (Vigilance) of Electricity Board requested the Executive Engineer vide Annexure P-l to make recovery from the petitioner of Rs. 39,396/-. Petitioner’s premises was raided thrice during the period from 1990 to 1998, and sum of Rs. 46,736/- against Service Connection No. 1180 and Rs. 73,702/-against Service Connection No. 1555, was found recoverable from the petitioner. The petitioner deposited merely Rs. 39,396/- against the amount due from him.
2. When the balance money to the tune of Rs. 81,069/- was sought to be recovered, the petitioner instituted Civil Suit No. 2-A/2003 in the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Lakhnadon, District Seoni, for perpetual injunction and refund of Rs. 40,703/-. The Electricity Board being defendant in the suit contended that the money deposited by the petitioner towards electricity bill has been rightly realised by the Board and still a sum of Rs. 81,069/- was due from the petitioner. This suit was dismissed on merits on 30-9-2005. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner had submitted an application for temporary injunction which was allowed by the learned Trial Judge and the Electricity Board was restrained from making recovery from the petitioner. However, on appeal, the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court was vacated vide order dated 28-8-2000. Against this order, Civil Revision No. 2274/2000 preferred by the petitioner before this Court was dismissed in default of appearance on 5-1-2005 as revealed in Annexure R-2. Thereafter, demand notices were issued to the petitioner on 20-10-2005 (Annexure P-3) and 16-11-2005 (Annexure P-7) requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 81,069/- as arrears of electricity charges. This has been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that the said amount is not due from him, secondly, the same is not recoverable by virtue of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3. The respondent Board has submitted its return with various documents justifying the recovery of Rs. 81,069/-.
4. Shri Sharad Verma, learned Advocate for petitioner, Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Govt. Advocate and Shri Vivek Rusia, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, made their submissions in support of respective pleas.
5. Shri Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner much relying upon Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, has vehemently argued that no recovery can be made after a period of two years because the arrears were not shown continuously as recoverable, as required in Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the said Act. For convenience, this sub-section is reproduced below:
56(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.
6. On a bare reading, it is amply clear that this section would apply only when a recovery is made of a sum which is due from any consumer under Section 56 itself. Admittedly, the arrears relate to the period prior to enforcement of the Electricity Act, 2003. Electricity connections were granted to the petitioner somewhere in the year 1975, as revealed in Paragraph 2 of the plaint contained in Annexure P-5. The premises of the petitioner was raided thrice during the period from 1990 to 1998 and Rs. 46,736/- against Service Connection No. 1180 and Rs. 73,702/- against Service Connection No. 1555 were found payable by the petitioner. The Electricity Act, 2003 substantially came into force w.e.f. 10-6-2003 vide Gazette of India dated 10-6-2003. By virtue of it, Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 came into force with effect from the said date. Prior to it, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was in force. Sub-section (3) of Section 23 empowered the Electricity Board (being a licensee) in the absence of an agreement to the contrary to charge for energy supplied by it to any consumer. In this view of the matter, the sum which is being recovered from the petitioner, cannot be said due under Section 56 of the said Act. Thus, Section 56(2) of the Act is not attracted at all.
7. As regards correctness of Rs. 81,069/-, it may be seen that the respondents have placed on record Annexure R-3 containing the details of the manner in which the figure has been worked out. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate any incorrectness in the calculation contained in Annexure R-3. Accordingly, this Court does not find any error in the liability worked out vide Annexure R-3.
8. In the result, I do not find any substance in the writ petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed, however, without order as to costs.