- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anshul Singhal holding brief of Sri Chandan Agarwal who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that very often for the last one year, the officials of respondent no. 2 threatened the petitioner to disconnect the electricity line on the ground that there is some outstanding bill of the year 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in all sincerity, petitioner approached the authority on a number of occasions for providing copy of the bills so that after ensuring if it is found that there were unpaid bills he may produce the receipts and even representation made by him in this regard has met with no result.
(3.) We find it really strange how the officials of respondent no. 2 can demand any payment from the consumer of the electrical energy without raising any bill. We are also astonished that even if the said bill is outstanding how the same is being demanded after expiry of a period of two years once the said sum has not been shown continuously as recoverable in the subsequent bills in view of Clause 6.15 of the Electricity Code, 2005 read with Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.;