ORAL JUDGMENT PER JUSTICE MR. V.R. KINGAONKAR We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is being disposed of at the stage of admission in view of narrow compass of controversy involved therein.2. The short question involved in the appeal is whether the appellant could have claimed electricity bills arrears pertaining to period of more than two years preceding the date of demand. 3. The admitted fact is that the appellant demanded amount of Rs.22,47,503/- towards electricity charges payable from April, 1999 to July, 2007. This demand was founded on the checking report dated 13th August, 2007. The respondent (complainant) made a representation and thereafter the demand was further enhanced. 4. According to the appellant, internal Regulation 110.1 read together with Regulation 124.1 gave authority to the appellant for making such demand based on the checking report. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the demand was made relating to the previous months/years as arrears on account of under assessment pointed out by the authorized officer. 5. The State Commission noticed the legal aspect of the amended Electricity Act, 2003. Sub Section (2) of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 creates legal embargo of demand for recovery of electricity charges supplied to the consumer if such demand is for period of more than two years preceding the date of demand bill. Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as follows:- “(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. The learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out to us that a Notification dated 29th June, 2007 is published by the appellant in order to issue modified Regulations. These Regulations are called “Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007). A memo appended to said regulations also gives clue to draw inference that in view of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the demand for period of two years prior to the date of billing cannot be made. All said and done, whatever may be the earlier internal regulation; the same cannot run contrary to the provisions of the Act and will not make the expressed legal provision nugatory. Consequently, the view taken by the State Commission is quite legal, proper and correct. We do not find any substance in the appeal. 7. For the reasons discussed herein above, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. | 
