The Madras High Court has said that the payment of arrears by an agriculturist of Ponneri Taluk and subsequent restoration of agricultural service connection will not preclude the electricity board from claiming the arrears to be determined by it from him by taking recourse to proceedings before the competent forum or to make the claim as per the Electricity Act.
The District Munsif (DM), Ponneri, had directed Subramania Reddy to pay Rs.9,494, the amount due from him, to the board. The Munsif also directed the board to receive the sum and to give reconnection, and accordingly passed a decree of mandatory injunction.
In the first appeal by the board, the Sub-Judge, Tiruvallur, confirmed the DM's order. He said that after the trial court order, Mr. Reddy had paid the sum and also obtained electricity connection. The appeal was not maintainable.
Second appeal
Challenging this, the board preferred the second appeal before the High Court.
It submitted that both the courts had incorrectly held that the board was not entitled to collect belated payment surcharge and other charges from the consumer totalling about Rs.29,000.
The power of disconnection and dismantling of installation for non-payment of dues could not be lost by any period of limitation.
As per Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, the board was entitled to demand and collect any charge from the consumer and collect the same towards energy supply.
In the judgment allowing the board's appeal, Justice M. Venugopal said the board had not filed a suit against the agriculturist claiming the arrears of electricity charges or any sum due as surcharge or any penalty.
Therefore, the plea of limitation could not be availed of by Mr. Reddy.
Miscarriage of justice
Unfortunately, the trial court and the First Appellate Court had overlooked the ingredients of Section 24, which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. The board's right to recover the dues was an independent and also an indefeasible right.
