M/S NANOTECH PVT. LTD. v. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & Ors.

2. SRI SK HIMATSINGKA, DIRECTOR OF M/S HIMATSINGKA MOTOR WORKS LTD., CHATRIBARI, GUWAHATI. - Petitioners - Versus-

1. ASSAM ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI-1. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

2. THE LOWER ASSAM ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-7, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

3. THE AREA MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA-I, LOWER ASSAM ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. ULUBARI, GUWAHATI. - Respondents. WP(C) 5632 OF 2005 SMTI. ;KAVERI GOSWAMI, W/O SRI MANORANJAN GOSWAMI, R/O MAA DURGA PATH, KAILASH NAGAR, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI-781028, ASSAM. - Petitioner - Versus-

1. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI-781008, ASSAM.

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ASEB, BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI-781008, ASSAM.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL DIVISION (EAST), ASEB, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM.

4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, GARBHANGA ELECTRIC SUB-DIVISION, ASEB, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI-781028. - Respondents. WP(C) 3173 OF 2004 M/S PLAST INDIA ENTERPRISES. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT GUWAHATI AND A FACTORY AT EPIP, AMINGAON, GUWAHATI-781031, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM. - Petitioner - Versus-

1. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL CIRCLE-II, ASEB, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI.

3. THE AREA MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA-II, ASEB, MALIGAON CHARIALI, GUWAHATI-12.

4. THE ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A BODY CORPORATE INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RG BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. - Respondents. WP(C) 3175 OF 2004 M/S OZONE AYURVEDICS, A PROPRIETORY FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT OZONE HOUSE-1, LSC BLOCK A-3, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110058 AND A FACTORY AT EPIP, AMINGAON, GUWAHATI-781031, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM. - Petitioner - Versus-

1. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL DIVISION (W), ASEB, GUWAHATI-9.

3. THE AREA MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA-II, ASEB, MALIGAON CHARIALI, GUWAHATI-12.

4. THE ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A BODY CORPORATE INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RG BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. - Respondents. WP(C) 3176 OF 2004 M/S JYOTHI LABAROTORIES LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 43, SHIV-SAKTHI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAROL, MUMBAI AND A FACTORY AT EPIP, AMINGAON, GUWAHATI-781031, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM. - Petitioner - Versus-

1. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL CIRCLE-II, ASEB, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI.

3. THE AREA MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA-II, ASEB, MALIGAON CHARIALI, GUWAHATI-12.

4. THE ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A BODY CORPORATE INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RG BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. - Respondents. WP(C) 3177 OF 2004 M/S JYOTHY LABORATOIRES LTD. (PHASE-II). A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 43, SHIV-SAKTHI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAROL, MUMBAI AND A FACTORY AT EPIP, AMINGAON, GUWAHATI-781031, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM. - Petitioner - Versus-

1. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL CIRCLE-II, ASEB, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI.

3. THE AREA MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA-II, ASEB, MALIGAON CHARIALI, GUWAHATI-12.

4. THE ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A BODY CORPORATE INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RG BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. - Respondents. WP(C) 3178 OF 2004 M/S JERICHO DETERGENT (P) LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BYE-LANE NO.3 AT TARUN NAGAR, GUWAHATI AND A FACTORY AT EPIP, AMINGAON, GUWAHATI-781031, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM. - Petitioner - Versus-

1. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL DIVISION (W), ASEB, GUWAHATI-9.

3. THE AREA MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA-II, ASEB, MALIGAON CHARIALI, GUWAHATI-12.

4. THE ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A BODY CORPORATE INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RG BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. - Respondents. WP(C) 3179 OF 2004 M/S UNICEM PAINTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT GUWAHATI AND A FACTORY AT EPIP, AMINGAON, GUWAHATI-781031, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM. - Petitioner - Versus-

1. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL CIRCLE-II, ASEB, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI.

3. THE AREA MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA-II, ASEB, MALIGAON CHARIALI, GUWAHATI-12.

4. THE ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A BODY CORPORATE INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RG BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. - Respondents. WP(C) 3180 OF 2004 M/S POLYCON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HANUMAN TOWER, SJ ROAD, GUWAHATI, AND A FACTORY AT EPIP, AMINGAON, GUWAHATI-781031, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM. - Petitioner - Versus-

1. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL CIRCLE-II, ASEB, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI.

3. THE AREA MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA-II, ASEB, MALIGAON CHARIALI, GUWAHATI-12.

4. THE ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A BODY CORPORATE INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RG BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. - Respondents. WP(C) 3181 OF 2004 M/S GURU DETERGENTS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT RATNA DEWAN ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI AND A FACTORY AT EPIP, AMINGAON, GUWAHATI-781031, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM. - Petitioner - Versus-

1. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL CIRCLE-II, ASEB, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI.

3. THE AREA MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA-II, ASEB, MALIGAON CHARIALI, GUWAHATI-12.

4. THE ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A BODY CORPORATE INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RG BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. - Respondents. WP(C) 3182 OF 2004 M/S TORSA MACHINES LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT GUWAHATI AND A FACTORY AT EPIP, AMINGAON, GUWAHATI-781031, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM. - Petitioner - Versus-

1. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL CIRCLE-II, ASEB, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI.

3. THE AREA MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA-II, ASEB, MALIGAON CHARIALI, GUWAHATI-12.

4. THE ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A BODY CORPORATE INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RG BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. - Respondents. WP(C) 3508 OF 2004 HBL NIFE POWER SYSTEMS LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ROAD NO. 10, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD AND A MANUFACTURING UNIT AT A FACTORY AT EPIP, AMINGAON, GUWAHATI-781031, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM. - Petitioner - Versus-

1. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL CIRCLE-II, ASEB, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI.

3. THE AREA MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA-II, ASEB, MALIGAON CHARIALI, GUWAHATI-12.

4. THE ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A BODY CORPORATE INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RG BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. - Respondents. WP(C) 6460 OF 1999 HOTEL BRAHMAPUTRA ASHOK A UNIT OF ASSAM ASHOK HOTEL CORPORATION LTD. MG ROAD, GUWAHATI-1, REPRESENED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER KAMAL BHARTI. - Petitioner - Versus-

1. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER (COMMERCIAL), GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL CIRCLE-II, ASEB, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI.

3. THE AREA MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA-II, ASEB, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-7. - Respondents. For the petitioners : MR. N DUTTA, MRS. M HAZARIKA, MR. SN SAR MR. GN SAHEWALLA, MR. AK GOSWAMI, Sr. Ad MA, vocate. MS. A AJIT SARIA, MR. H HARMA, MS. JM BARMAN, P BORA, MD. ASLAM, MR. M MAHANTA, MR. BM CHOUDHURY, MRS. A BHATTACHARYYA, MR. P KALITA, Advocates. MR. S SHYAM, MR. R DUBEY, MR. J PATOWARY, For the State respondents: MR. DK MISHRA, SR. ADVOCATE, MR. BD DAS, Standing Counsel, ASEB. MR. HK SARMA, MR. A DEB, MR. D NATH, Advocates. Dates of hearing : 10.06.2004, 01.12.2005, 03.08.2006 01.02.200 7, 09.03.2007, 08.05.2007, 09.08.2007, 10.01.2008, 15.09.2008, 30.09.2008 & 20-0 1-2009 Date of judgment and order :

16.02.2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I A ANSARI JUDGMENT & ORDER By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of this set of t he writ petitions inasmuch as all these writ petitions, having raised, substanti ally, same questions of law, have been heard together. These cases are slightly unusual; it is unusual, because, ordinarily, the facts of a case, in a judgment, are first narrated in order to appreciate, correctly, the application of the la w, which may have a bearing on the given case. In the cases at hand, however, se veral common questions of law have been raised and if the answers to the questio ns, so raised, are settled, it would become easier to determine the application of law governing the cases involved in this set of writ petitions. Keeping this end in view, let me, first, formulate the common questions of law, which have be en raised in these writ petitions. The questions are: (i) Whether the Assam State Electricity Board (in short, ’the Board’) has, u nder the law, continued to function, or can be said to have continued to functio n, beyond 09-06-2004, as a State Transmission Utility as well as Licensee as def ined under the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short, ’2003 Act’) ? (ii) Whether the Board is, under the law, competent to realize the dues, whic h became payable by a consumer under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (in short, ’1910 Act’) and if so, is there any limitation imposed on such a right of the Board? (iii) On coming into force of 2003 Act, with effect from the appointed date, i .e. 10-06-2003, whether the Board’s right to realize its dues, from a consumer f or his consumption of electricity, can be exercised at any point of time or is t here any limitation on such right of recovery, which may have, otherwise, been a vailable, under 1910 Act, to the Board ? After coming into force of the 2003 Act, whether the Board can cut off s (iv) upply of electricity to a consumer for unpaid dues, if the unpaid dues are sough t to be recovered by raising a bill for consumption of electricity, though no bi ll was raised within a period of one month from the date of consumption of elect ricity nor was the sum, claimed as dues, was continuously shown recoverable as a rrear of charges for electricity supplied for a period of twenty five months fro m the date of consumption of the electrical energy? (v) If no notice of demand, notice of recovery or notice of disconnection wa s served, on a consumer, before coming into force of the 2003 Act, whether it wo uld be permissible for the Board to recover such dues or cut off the supply of e lectricity to the consumer by taking recourse to its rights under the 1910 Act a nd if so, is there any limitation on such exercise of the right of the Board? I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, Mr. S.N. Sharma, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Ms. M. H 2. azarika and Mr. MB Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, for the petitioners, and M r. DK Mishra, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. BD Das, learned Standing C ounsel, ASEB, appearing on behalf of the Assam State Electricity Board. I have a lso heard Mr. H.K. Sharma, learned counsel, for the Assam Industrial Development Corporation.

3. as common questions of law. Let me, now, deal with the questions, which have been formulated above,

4. The State Electricity Boards used to exist, on the strength of their for mation, in terms of the provisions of Section 5(1) of the 1910 Act. It is, there fore, not in dispute that a Board, as defined in Section 2(7) of the 2003 Act, n ow, means a State Electricity Board constituted under the provisions of Section 5(1) of the 1910 Act.

5. There is no dispute that 2003 Act has come into force w.e.f. 10-06-2003, which is the appointed day within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the 2003 Act. There is also no dispute that with the coming into force of the 2003 Act on the date aforementioned, 1910 Act stood repealed under the provisions of Section 185 of the 2003 Act except to the extent as Section 185, otherwise, provides. I may, now, turn to Section 185, which embodies the provisions with rega

6. rd to repeal and saving. This Section reads as under: (cid:28)185. Repeal and saving.-(l) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910), the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 194 8) and the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 (14 of 1998) are hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal,- (a) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken in cluding any rule, notification, inspection, order or notice made or issued or an y appointment, confirmation or declaration made or any licence, permission, auth orisation or exemption granted or any document or instrument executed or any dir ection given under the repealed laws shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act; (b) the provisions contained in sections 12 to 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910) and rules made thereunder shall have effect until the rules un der sections 67 to 69 of this Act are made; (c) the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 made under section 37 of the Indian Elect ricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910) as it stood before such repeal shall continue to be in force till the regulations under section 53 of this Act are made. (d) all rules made under sub-section (1) of section 69 of the Electricity (Suppl y) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948) shall continue to have effect until such rules are res cinded or modified, as the case may be; (e) all directives issued, before the commencement of this Act, by a State Gover nment under the enactments specified in the Schedule shall continue to apply for the period for which such directions were issued by the State Government. (3) The provisions of the enactments specified in the Schedule, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall apply to the States in which such enactm ents are applicable. (4) The Central Government may, as and when considered necessary, by notificatio n, amend the Schedule. (5) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), the mention of particular mat ters in that section, shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general appli cation of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), with regard t o the effect of repeals. (cid:29)

7. In order to correctly interpret the provisions of Section 185, it is nec essary that the provisions of Sections 173, 174 and 175 too be kept in view. The se provisions are, therefore, quoted below: (cid:28)173. Inconsistency in laws.-Nothing contained in this Act or any rule or regula tion made thereunder or any instrument having effect by virtue of this Act, rule or regulation shall have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any other provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986) or the Atomic Energ y Act, 1962 (33 of 1962) or the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989).

174. Act to have overriding effect.-Save as otherwise provided in section 173, t he provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsisten t therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any ins trument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.

175. Provisions of this Act to be in addition to and not in derogation of other laws.- The provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of an y other law for the time being in force. (cid:29)

8. A conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 173 to 175 clearly indi cates that if there is any inconsistency between the provisions of the 2003 Act, on the one hand, and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, or Atomic Energy Act, 1 962, or the Railways Act, 1989, on the other, the provisions of the 2003 Act wil l not prevail over the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Atomic Energy Act, 1962, o r the Railways Act, 1989. Except, however, the provisions of the Consumer Protec tion Act, 1986, Atomic Energy Act, 1962, or the Railways Act, 1989, as indicated hereinbefore, Section 173 shows that the provisions of 2003 Act shall have over riding effect over all other laws, though while having such overriding effect, t he provisions of the 2003 Act shall be read in addition to, and not in derogatio n of, any other law for the time being in force.

9. Thus, when Sections 173, 174 and 175 are read together, there remains no room for doubt that so far as, at least, the 1910 Act is concerned, the provisi ons contained therein will not override the provisions of the 2003 Act except to the extent as Section 185 may have itself saved.

10. A careful reading of Section 185(a) shows that notwithstanding the repea l of the 1910 Act, Clause (a) of Section 185 protects if anything has already be en done or purported to be done, or any action has already been taken or purport ed to be taken under the 1948 Act. In order to protect the acts done or purport ed to be done, or any action taken or purported to be taken, Clause (a) lays dow n that such acts done or purported to be done, or such action taken or purported to be taken, under the repealed laws, shall be deemed to have been done under t he provisions of 2003 Act provided that such act or action is not inconsistent w ith the provisions of 2003 Act. As far as clauses (b), (c), (d) and (e) are conc erned, we are not concerned with them in the present set of writ petitions.

11. What, therefore, clause (a) of Section 185 makes clear is that this Clau se cannot be taken resort to for the purpose of taking any action under the repe aled law if no action has already been taken or purported to be taken under the repealed laws (i.e., under the 1910 Act) before the 2003 Act had come into force . In short, if anything has already been done or purported to be done or any act ion has already been taken or purported to be taken under the 1910 Act, such act s or actions will remain protected, notwithstanding the repeal of the 1948 Act; but if no such act had already been done or purported to be done or if no such a ction had already been taken or purported to be taken before the 2003 Act came into force, then, recourse to the repealed provisions of the 1948 Act cannot be had for the purpose of doing any thing or taking any action under the repealed e nactment.

12. Coupled with the above, what needs to be noted, most importantly, is tha t under the provisions of the repealed Act, i.e., 1910 Act, even if anything has already been done or purported to be done or any action has already been taken or purported to be taken before coming into force of the 2003 Act, the same will not be saved unless the act, which has been done or purported to be done or act ion, which has been taken or purported to be taken, under the repealed Act, i.e. , (1910 Act), is consistent with the provisions of 2003 Act. This, in turn, sign ifies that after coming into force of the 2003 Act, no act, which has already be en done or purported to be done and/or no action, which has already been taken or purported to be taken, under the 1910 Act, shall be continued to have their e ffect on coming into force of the 2003 Act if such act or action is inconsistent with the provisions of the 2003 Act.

13. What logically follows from the above discussion is that if, for consump tion of electricity, no bill was raised or no notice of demand, notice of recove ry or notice of disconnection had been issued to a consumer, before coming into force of the 2003 Act, it would be impermissible for the Board to recover such d ues or cut off the supply of electricity to the consumer by taking recourse to i ts rights under the 1910 Act if such dues had become payable under the 1910 Act and no step was taken or resolved to be taken by the Board, before the 2003 Act came into force, for recovery of its dues and/or for cutting off the supply of e lectricity to the consumer concerned. 14. Question No.(v) shall stand answered accordingly. Before entering into the discussion on the transitional provisions conta 15. ined in Section 172 of the 2003 Act, notwithstanding the repeal of the 1910 Act, it needs to be pointed out that Section 12 makes it clear that no person shall transmit electricity or distribute electricity or undertake to trade in electric ity unless he is authorized to do so by a licence issued under Section 14 or is exempted under Section 13. Section 12, thus, shows that unless a person is exemp ted under Section 13 or granted a licence under Section 14, he cannot transmit e lectricity or distribute electricity or undertake trading in electricity. Sectio n 13, I may point out, empowers the appropriate commission to exempt any local authority, panchayat institution, users association, co-operative societies, non -governmental organizations or franchisees from the operation of Section 12, tho ugh such exemption can be granted, in public interest, only on the recommendatio n of the appropriate Government and in accordance with the national policy formu lated under Section 5. Thus, it is the appropriate commission, which has the aut hority to grant exemption, and not the State Government. I may point out that an appropriate commission, according to Section 2(4) of the 2003 Act, means the Ce ntral Regulatory Commission referred to in sub-section(1) of Section 76 or the S tate Regulatory Commission referred to in Section 82 or the Joint Commission ref erred to in Section 83, as the case may be, as contemplated by Section 12.

16. What is, now, necessary to note is that Section 2(38) defines a Licence to mean a licence granted under Section 14 and a Licensee means, according to Se ction 2(39), a person, who has been granted a licence under Section 14. Since a licensee means a person, who has been granted licence under Section 14, let me p oint out that Section 14 envisages three kinds of licences, which can be granted by the appropriate commission inasmuch as Section 14 clearly states that approp riate commission may, on an application made to it under Section 14, grant a lic ence to any person (a) to transmit electricity as a transmission licensee; or (b ) to distribute electricity as a distribution licensee; and (c) to undertake tra ding in electricity as an electricity trader, in any area as may be specified in the licence. No wonder, therefore, that a distribution licensee, according to S ection 2(17), means, a licensee authorized to operate and maintain a distributio n system for supplying electricity to the consumers in his area of supply. Simil arly, an electricity trader, according to Section 2(26), means a person, who has been granted, under Section 14 read with Section 12, a licence to undertake tra ding in electricity; whereas, in the light of Section 2(73) read with Section 2( 74), a transmission licensee means a licensee, who is authorized to establish or operate transmission lines for the purpose of conveyance of electricity. Thus, the 2003 Act clearly establishes three distinct categories of lice 17. nsees, namely, (a) to transmit electricity as a transmission licensee; or (b) to distribute electricity as a distribution licensee; and (c) to undertake trading in electricity as an electricity trader in any area as may be specified in the licence.

18. Let me, now, come to the question as to what a State Transmission Utilit y (in short, ’the STU’) is. In this regard, it is worth noticing that according to Section 2(67), a STU means the Board or a Government Company specified as suc h by the State Government under Sub-Section (1) of Section 39. How a STU can be formed and what can be its statutory functions are embodied in Section 39. The r elevant provisions of Section 39 are, therefore, reproduced hereinbelow: (cid:28)39. State Transmission Utility and functions.-(l) The State Government may noti fy the Board or a Government company as the State Transmission Utility: Provided that the State Transmission Utility shall not engage in the business of trading in electricity: Provided further that the State Government may transfer, and vest any property, interest in property, rights and liabilities connected with, and personnel invol ved in transmission of electricity, of such State Transmission Utility, to a com pany or companies to be incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) t o function as transmission licensee through a transfer scheme to be effected in the manner specified under Part XIII and such company or companies shall be deem ed to be transmission licensees under this Act. (2) The functions of the State Transmission Utility shall be- (a) to undertake transmission of electricity through intra-State transmission sy stem; (b) to discharge all functions of planning and co-ordination relating to intra-S tate transmission system with- (i) Central Transmission Utility; (ii) State Governments; (iii) generating companies; (iv)Regional Power Committees; (v) Authority; (vi) licensees; (vii) any other person notified by the State Government in this behalf; (c) to e nsure development of an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of intra-S tate transmission lines for smooth flow of electricity from a generating station to the load centres; (d) to provide non-discriminatory open access to its transmission system for use by- (i) any licensee or generating company on payment of the transmission charges; o r (ii) any consumer as and when such open access is provided by the State Commissi on under sub-section (2) of section 42, on payment of the transmission charges a nd a surcharge thereon, as may be specified by the State Commission: Provided that such surcharge shall be utilised for the purpose of meeting the re quirement of current level cross-subsidy: Provided further that such surcharge and cross subsidies shall be progressively reduced and eliminated in the manner as may be specified by the State Commission : Provided also that such surcharge may be levied till such time the cross subsidi es are not eliminated: Provided also that the manner of payment and utilisation of the surcharge shall be specified by the State Commission: Provided also that such surcharge shall not be leviable in case open access is p rovided to a person who has established a captive generating plant for carrying the electricity to the destination of his own use. (cid:29) From a bare reading of Section 39(1), what becomes clear is that the Sta 19. te Government is competent to notify the Board or a Government Company as the ST U and after the Board has been declared as the STU, the Board shall not engage i tself in the business of trading in electricity. This shows that on coming into force of the 2003 Act, the State Government may notify that its existing State E lectricity Board, such as, the Assam State Electricity Board, shall function as STU and if a Board, such as, the Assam State Electricity Board, is notified as t he STU, it shall cease to engage in the business of trading of electricity. The function of the STU, as indicated by Section 39(2), is limited to undertaking tr ansmission of electricity through intra-State transmission system and such other functions and duties as are provided in Section 39. Coupled with the above, one may also note that the second proviso to Sec 20. tion 14 makes it clear that the Central Transmission Utility or State Transmissi on Utility shall be deemed to be a transmission licensee. Thus, while it is the appropriate commission, which can, under Section 14, give licence to a person to function as transmission licensee, the State Government has the power to notify even its existing State Electricity Board as the STU and, once the State Electr icity Board is so notified, it can function as transmission licensee; but it can not, as a STU, in the light of the proviso to Section 39(1), engage itself in th e trading of electricity. What may also be pointed out is that while a STU is co mpletely debarred from functioning as an electricity trader, it may, if granted a licence, under Section 14 read with Section 12, by the appropriate commission, function as a distribution licensee. In other words, while it is not legally pe rmissible at all for a STU to trade in electricity, a STU may, on having receive d a licence under Section 14 read with Section 12, can function as a distributio n licensee. What is, however, extremely important to bear in mind is that while a STU can function, by virtue of its being a STU, as a transmission licensee, it cannot, without a licence, function as a distribution licensee.

21. Bearing in mind the above fundamental aspects of the scheme of 2003 Act, let me, now, turn to Section 172, which contains the transitional provisions. T his Section reads: (cid:28)172. Transitional provisions.- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contain ed in this Act,- (a) a State Electricity Board constituted under the repealed laws shall be deeme d to be the State Transmission Utility and a licensee under the provisions of th is Act for a period of one year from the appointed date or such ’earlier date as the State Government may notify, and shall perform the duties and functions of the State Transmission Utility and a licensee in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules and regulations made thereunder: Provided that the State Government may, by notification, authorise the State Ele ctricity Board to continue to function as the State Transmission Utility or a li censee for such further period beyond the said period of one year as may be mutu ally decided by the Central Government and the State Government. (b) all licences, authorisations, approvals, clearances and permissions granted under the provisions of the repealed laws may, for a period not exceeding one ye ar from the appointed date or such earlier period; as may be notified by the App ropriate Government, continue to operate as if the repealed laws were in force w ith respect to such licences, authorisations, approvals, clearances and permissi ons, as the case may be, and thereafter such licences, authorisations, approvals , clearances and permissions shall be deemed to be licences, authorisations, app rovals, clearances and permission under this Act and all provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly to such licences authorisations approvals, clearances an d permissions. (c) the undertaking of the State Electricity Boards established under section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948) may after the expiry of the p eriod specified in clause (a) be transferred in accordance with the provisions o f Part XIII of this Act; (d) the State Government may, by notification, declare that any or all the provi sions contained in this Act, shall not apply in that State for such period, not exceeding six months from the appointed date, as may be stipulated in the notifi cation. (cid:29)

22. A careful and cautious reading of Section 172 clearly shows that on comi ng into force of the 2003 Act, w.e.f. 10-06-2003, a State Electricity Board, suc h as, the Assam State Electricity Board, shall be deemed to be the STU as well a s a licensee, under the 2003 Act, for a period of one year from the appointed da te or such earlier date as the State Government may notify. Consequently, if the State Government does not specify, by way of notification, any earlier date on which the existing State Electricity Board, such as, the Assam State Electricity Board constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and hereinafter ref erred to as the 1948 Act shall cease to act, the resultant effect would be that the State Electricity Board, such as, the Assam State Electricity Board, shall, on expiry of a period of one year from the appointed date, cease to be the STU a s well as the licensee under the 2003 Act. The proviso to clause (a) of Section 172, however, empowers the State Government to authorize its existing Electricit y Board, such as, the Assam State Electricity Board, to continue to function eit her as a STU or as a licensee for such further period beyond the said period of one year as may be mutually decided by the Central Government as well as the Sta te Government. This power of extension can, however, be exercised by the State G overnment only by way of notification.

23. Thus, for a period of one year from the appointed date, Assam State Elec tricity Board, in the present case, could have continued, without a licence, to function as the STU as well as a licensee under the 2003 Act, but upon expiry of a period of one year from the appointed date, it could have neither functioned as a STU nor could it have functioned as a distribution licensee unless the resp ondents herein can show that the State Government had, before the expiry of the said period of one year, and by virtue of an appropriate notification, authorize d the State Electricity Board to function either as a STU or as a licensee.

24. Pausing here for a moment, let me point out that Section 2(46) defines n otification to mean, notification published in the Official Gazette and the expr ession (cid:28)notify (cid:29) shall be construed accordingly. This, in turn, means that when t he 2003 Act empowers the State or any other authority to do a thing by notifying the same, it would mean that such an act is possible to do only by way of notif ication published in the official gazette.

25. It is also worth pointing that under Clause (a) of Section 172, the Stat e Government may cut short the said period of one year, but cannot extend the sa id period of one year except as has been indicated in the proviso to Clause (a) of Section 172. The proviso to Clause (a) of Section 172 shows, as already point ed out above, that a State Government can, by way of notification, authorize the State Electricity Board, constituted under the 1948 Act, to continue to functio n as a STU or a Licensee beyond the said period of one year provided that such e xtension is mutually decided by the Central and the State Government and such a decision is notified in the official gazette. Hence, if no notification is publi shed, in the Official Gazette, under the proviso to Clause (a) of Section 172, a uthorising a State Electricity Board to function as a STU or as a Licensee, the State Electricity Board concerned cannot, beyond the period of one year from the appointed date, function either as a Licensee or as the STU.

26. In the present case, though the Board has produced the notifications, date d 10.06.2004, 07.08.2004 and 08.10.2004, authorizing the Board to act both as th e STU as well as a licensee, what needs to be noted is that no notification was published in the official gazette. That the State Government was aware of the fa ct that without a Gazette notification, published in this regard, the ASEB would not be able to function as STU and/or as a licensee is evident from the fact th at the State Government did publish such a Gazette notification. In fact, the f irst gazette notification, in this regard, was published on 05.06.2006. By the time, however, this notification, dated 05.06.2006, was brought out, more than o ne year of the period, prescribed under Section 172(a), had already elapsed. 27. What logically follows from the above discussion is that in the absence of any gazette notification extending the authority of the existing State Electr icity Board to act as a STU or as a licensee under the 2003 Act, the State Elect ricity Board, such as, the Assam State Electricity Board, could not have functio ned and cannot, now, function either as a STU or as a licensee. I may also pause here to point out that as the STU, a Board can function as a transmission licen see only. However, as a licensee, it can function not only as a transmission lic ensee, but also as a distribution licensee and/or as an electricity trader. 28. It has been contended by Mr. N Dutta, learned Senior counsel, that in th e present case, since the Gazette notification, enabling the Assam State Electri city Board to function either as a STU or as a Licensee under the 2003 Act, has not been published within the prescribed period of one year as envisaged by Sect ion 172(a), the Board, in the present case, could not have functioned beyond one year from the appointed date either as a STU or as a Licensee, particularly, wh en the Gazette notification, published on 05.06.2006, does not mention that the said notification would come into force with retrospective effect. Thus, the Gaz ette notification is, according to Mr. Dutta, prospective and whatever the Board has done or whatever action the Board has taken as a licensee after a period of one year from the appointed day, the same needs to be treated as beyond the jur isdiction of the Board and non est in law. This submission of Mr. Dutta has, by and large, been supported by other learned counsel, appearing for various writ p etitioners.

29. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Board, on the other hand, submits that though a State Electricity Board cannot be deemed to be the STU as well as a Licensee beyond the period of one year from the appoi nted date or such shorter period as the State Government may notify, it is possi ble for such a State Electricity Board to function, both as the STU as well as a Licensee, beyond the said period of one year, if so decided mutually by the Cen tral and the State Government. It is contended by Mr. Mishra that while reading the proviso to clause (a) of Section 172, the word occurring as (cid:28)or (cid:29) shall be r ead as (cid:28)and (cid:29). If so construed, a State Electricity Board can function both as th e STU as well as a Licensee beyond the said period of one year as may be mutuall y decided by the Central Government and the State Government. The argument of Mr . Mishra has a flaw. If it were the intention of the legislature to enable a Sta te Electricity Board to function both as a STU as well as a licensee beyond a pe riod of one year from the appointed date, nothing could have stopped the legisla ture from incorporating in the proviso to Clause (a) of Section 172 that if the Central as well as the State Governments mutually decide, it may, by notificatio n, authorize the State Electricity Board to function both as a STU as well as a licensee. The legislature, however, has not done so; rather, the legislature has provided that with the mutual decision of the Central as well as State Governme nt, a State Electricity Board may function, beyond the said period of one year, either as a STU or as a licensee.

30. The legislative intent, behind the provisions of Section 172(a), appears to be that a State Electricity Board may be allowed to function both as a STU a s well as a licensee for a limited period of one year from the appointed date an d, if required, the State Government may even cut short the period of functionin g of its existing State Electricity Board both as a STU as well as a licensee; b ut the State Electricity Board cannot function both as a STU as well as a licens ee beyond the said period of one year. The State Government will have a choice t o retain its State Electricity Board either as a STU or it may let its existing Electricity Board function as a licensee beyond the said period of one year prov ided that the Central as well as the State Government agree to do so and publish necessary gazette notification in this regard. Therefore, the legislative inten t was, undoubtedly, to discourage existing State Electricity Boards from functi oning both as STU as well as licensee beyond the period of one year from the app ointed date, i.e., on 10.06.2003.

31. It is, now, time to pause and look, once again, to Section 39. Sub-Secti on (1) of Section 39 shows that the State Government may notify the Board or a G overnment company as the State Transmission Utility. Sub-Section (67) of Section 2 defines STU to mean the Board or the Government Company as may have been spec ified by the Government in exercise of its powers under Section 39(1).

32. No specific notification has been produced before this Court to show tha t the State Government has, in exercise of its power under Section 39(1), notifi ed the Board as the STU. Thus, the Board functioned, with the help of the transi tional provisions, as contained in Section 172(a), for a period of one year from the date of coming into force of the 2003 Act, as the STU as well as a licensee . It has happened only because of the fact that by creating a legal fiction, Sec tion 172 enabled the Board to act as the STU as well as a licensee for the perio d of one year from the appointed date. When no notification has been published, in the official gazette, empowering the Board to act as a licensee, the Board co uld not have functioned as, at least, a distribution licensee or as an electrici ty trader. Why I conclude so is that the gazette notification, which has been pu blished on 05.06.2006, may, at best, be construed as a notification under Sectio n 39 (1) and, if so construed, it would mean that the State Government has made the existing State Electricity Board, i.e., the ASEB, a STU and has, with the he lp of this notification, authorized the Board to act as the transmission license e inasmuch as it is the State Government, which has the authority to notify the Board as the STU, and as a STU, the Board can function as a transmission license e. But so far as the functioning of the Board as a distribution licensee is conc erned or the capacity of the Board to function as an electricity trader is conce rned, the same cannot be conferred by the State Government inasmuch as it is for the appropriate commission to grant a licence for the purpose of distribution e nabling a person to function as distribution licensee or to function as a trader in electricity. The only way in which the State Government could have made its State Electricity Board function as a distribution licensee and/or as an electri city trader, besides being a transmission licensee, was, to have published a not ification, in terms of the proviso to Clause (a) of Section 172, authorising the Board to continue to function as a licensee. 32A. Even if one assumes, for a moment, that the publication of notification , in the official Gazette, was not imperative, it is to be borne in mind that th e Board could not have, as already mentioned above, functioned both as STU as we ll as Licensee even on the strength of a Government notification. The Governmen t had a choice to either make the Board an STU or a Licensee. It appears from t he discussion held above that the Government chose to make the Board an STU. Th us, in its capacity as STU, the Board could have functioned as ’transmission lic ensee’. Once the Board had started functioning as the STU, it could not have fu nctioned at all as an ’electricity trader’. As far as the Board’s functioning a s a ’distribution licensee’ is concerned, the same was not permissible in law u nless the Board was granted a licence by the appropriate Commission. In the co ntext of the facts of the present case, it is, therefore, crystal clear that the Board could not have functioned as a ’distribution licensee’ without a licence having been issued, in this regard, by the appropriate Commission. Question No. (i) stands answered accordingly. 33. 34. It is, now, the stage to take also note of the fact that clause (d) of S ection 172 makes it clear that unless the State Government, by notification, in the official gazette, declares any or all the provisions of the 2003 Act shall n ot to apply, in that State, for such period not existing six months from the app ointed date, the provisions of the 2003 Act would become applicable. Hence, unle ss a State Government issues a notification under Section 172(a), the provisions of the 2003 Act must be taken to have come into force on the appointed date. Co nsequently, if the provisions of the 2003 Act have to be made non-applicable, th en, the State Government must issue a notification by publishing the same in the official gazette declaring that a given provision or all the provisions of the Act would not apply. At any rate, the applicability of the 2003 Act cannot, howe ver, be stopped beyond the period of six months from the appointed date. Since t he 2003 Act has come into force on 10.06.2003 and there is, admittedly, no notif ication under Section 172(d), all the provisions of the 2003 Act, including Sect ions 56, 131 and 132, must be treated to have become applicable on 10.06.2003 it self. In short, Section 56 must be held to have come into force, in the absence of showing anything to the contrary, on the appointed dated, i.e., 10.06.2003. L et me, now, look into, and examine, the provisions of Section 56. This Section r eads: (cid:28)56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment.-(l) Where any person neglect s to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electrici ty due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, tr ansmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or th e generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days’ notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such c harge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpo se cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have be en supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cu tting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, . but no longer: Provided that the supply of electricity shall not be cut off if such person depo sits, under protest,- (a) an amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or (b) the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months, whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in fo rce, 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 suc h sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electr icity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity. (cid:29)

35. A microscopic reading of Sub-Section (2) of Section 56 shows that notwit hstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no su m due from any consumer, under this Section, shall be recoverable after the peri od 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. 36. As the 2003 Act came into force on 10.06.2003, it, in the absence of any notification having been issued under Section 172(d), becomes clear that with e ffect from 10.06.2003, no sum due from any consumer, in the State of Assam, can be recovered after a period of two years from the date, when the said sum became first due unless the said sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arr ear of charges. Having agreed that in terms of the provisions of Section 56(2), the Boar 37. d is not competent to recover any due from any consumer after a period of two ye ars from the date, when such due became ’first’ due unless such sum has been sho wn continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity, Mr. Mishra questi ons as to when a sum, for the purpose of Section 56(2), be said to have become ’ first’ due. According to Mr. Mishra, the charges for electricity shall become du e only when a bill is raised by the Board for the electricity consumed and not b efore. 38. Thus, what Mr. Mishra contends is that irrespective of the date on which a consumer might have consumed electricity, the period of limitation of two yea rs, as contemplated by Section 56(2), will not start running unless and until a bill is raised. In respect of this contention, Mr. Mishra places reliance on HD Shourie Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (AIR 1981 Del 219). If this argument of Mr. Mishra is acceded to, the result would be that a consumer will have to pa y a bill for electricity, which he might have consumed even 50 years ago. Such c annot be the intent and purpose of placing the embargo of limitation, under Sect ion 56(2), on a licensee’s right to recover its dues from a consumer. In HD Shou rie (supra), a bill for electricity, which had been consumed during the period f rom 20.03.70 to 20.05.74, was served on the consumer on 20.10.77. This was chall enged on the ground that the sum, mentioned in the bill, was not recoverable aft er expiry of the period of three years as provided under the Limitation Act, 196 3. In HD Shourie (supra), it was Section 24 of the 1910 Act, which was under int erpretation. Section 24 read: (cid:28)24. Discontinuance of supply to consumer neglecting to pay charge: Where any pe rson neglects to pay any charge for energy for any (sum, other than a charge of energy) due from him to a licensee in respect of supply of energy to him, the li censee may, after giving not less than seven clear day’s notice in writing to su ch person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or disconnect any supply l ine or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied, and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, tog ether with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supp ly are paid, but no longer. (cid:29)

39. From a careful reading of Section 24, what transpires is that under this Section, it was possible for the Board to cut off the supply of electricity by giving 7 day’s notice, in writing, to the person, who neglects to pay any electr icity charge due from him to a licensee in respect of supply of energy to him. J ustice B.N. Kirpal (as his Lordship then was) held that the word due, according to Section 24, would not refer to the date of consumption of electricity; rather , due date would commence, for the purpose of the period of limitation, only whe n a bill for consumption of electricity is raised. 40. What is required to be pointed out, while dealing with the case of HD Sh ourie (supra), is that it was contended, on behalf of the petitioner, in HD Shou rie (supra), that a sum will become due on consumption of electricity and if suc h sum is not paid within a period of three years from the date of consumption of electricity, such due will not be recoverable. The Delhi High Court turned down this proposition and held that a sum will cease to become recoverable only when a bill, for consumption of electricity, was raised, the same was not paid withi n the time frame given by the Board and the Board failed, even thereafter, to ta ke any action for recovery of the said sum by instituting appropriate proceeding within a period of three years from the date, when the consumer ought to have, in terms of the bill raised against him, paid. It is this proposition of law, pr opounded in HD Shourie (supra), which Mr. Mishra relies upon. 41. While considering the case of HD Shourie (supra), it needs to be borne i n mind that the decision in HD Shourie (supra) has come up for consideration bef ore this High Court on a number of occasions in the past. In Babulal Jain Vs ASE B and ors. (CR No.1173, 1193, 1142, 1140, 1147, 1154 and 1192 of 1990) decided o n 11.06.1996, it was held that the Assam State Electricity Board is not a State and, hence, the period of limitation for realization of the dues payable to the Board is three years. Similar view was expressed in Harishpur Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. A SEB (CR 1608/1990) decided on 08.07.1996. Even in Mokalbari Tea Estate Vs. ASEB (WP(C) 1804/2000) decided on 05.04.2004, it was held that period of limitation f or recovery of the dues of the Board, the Board not being a State, shall be thre e years and Section 112 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes limitation perio d of 30 years in respect of the State, will not be applicable. In Mokalbari Kano i Tea Estate Ltd. (supra), the bill was raised long after three years of consump tion, the sum, mentioned in the bill, was held to be not recoverable. This decis ion was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in ASEB VS. Mokalbari Kanoi Tea Estate Ltd., decided on 14.11.2006. In the Special Leave Petition, namely, SLP (Civil) No.1315/2007, which challenged the said decision of the Division Bench, the Apex Court declined, on 02.02.2007, to exercise its discretionary jurisdicti on, under Article 136 of the Constitution, and dismissed the Special Leave Petit ion.

42. What is, now, worth mentioning is that the Division Bench, in Mokalbari Kanoi Tea Estate Ltd. (supra), has held that there was no time frame in raising a demand for energy charge in HD Shourie (supra); whereas the Terms and Conditio ns of Supply Act, 1988, in Assam, fixed a period of one month for raising a dema nd for electricity charges and when one month’s period has been given for raisin g demand, the period of limitation will start running against the Board after a period of one month from the date of consumption of electricity by the consumer concerned.

43. Referring to the decision in HD Shourie (supra), and the decision of the Division Bench in ASEB (supra), Mr. Mishra points out that even in HD Shourie ( supra), a period had been fixed, under the regulations, for raising of bills and this aspect was not noticed by the Division Bench in Mokalbari Kanoi Tea Estate Ltd. (supra).

44. It is true that even in HD Shourie (supra), regulations, relating to ter ms and conditions of supply, had fixed a period for raising of the bills for ele ctricity charges, yet the Delhi High Court held that the sum would become due on ly when the bill was raised. What, however, needs to be pointed out is that the terms and conditions of supply, the provisions of the 2003 Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder are all required to be read and construed as a co mplete scheme. Neither the provisions of the Act can be made ineffective by taki ng recourse to the terms and conditions of supply of electricity nor can the ter ms and conditions of supply be made imbecile and ineffective by referring to som e provisions of the 2003 Act, the rules and regulations framed thereunder. When the Act, rules, regulations and conditions of supply are read together as a comp lete scheme, it becomes clear that under the Terms and Conditions of supply, 199 8, as operating in Assam, the bill was required to be raised every month and the consumer was required to be given a time-frame of 15 days for payment. As regards the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Cod 45. e) Regulations, 2004, (in short, ’the 2004 Regulations’), which has come into fo rce on 04.02.2005, it may be pointed out that Regulation 4.22, mandates that bi ll shall be raised every month and the consumer shall be given 15 days’ time to make payment from the date of presentation of the bill and that if there is any deviation, in this regard, reasons shall be indicated in the bill itself. Thus, the terms and conditions of supply, 1998, required the bill for energy charge to be raised within one month from the date of consumption of energy and time fram e of 15 days for payment by the consumer on presentation of the bill. Similarly, Regulation 4.22 of 2004 Regulations too requires the bill to be raised, in Assa m, within one month from the date of consumption and postulates payment of the b ill within 15 days by the consumer from the date of presentation of the bill. Re gulation 4.22 envisages that in case there is any deviation, i.e., delay in rais ing the bill, reasons for the delay must be assigned in the bill itself. Regulat ion 4.22 reads: (cid:28)4.2.2.1 Billing Frequency and Serving of Bills Bill frequency for all categories of consumers should preferably b