- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand made by the respondents against it by virtue of letter dated 16.9.2011 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner has been burdened with the liability to pay the amount of Rs.2,52,21,006/-on account of voltage surcharge for the period December-2004 to May-2007 and June-2007 to February-2009. The petitioner has raised a plea that the same is against the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, this question has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in the case of M/s Antarctic Industries and others vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, LPA No. 605 of 2009, decided on 9.9.2011 wherein it was held that the respondent-authorities are well within their jurisdiction to recover the amount beyond two years which is the period contemplated in Section 56(2) of the Act under the threat of disconnection. For the purpose of reference, relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:- Another argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants, common to both set of cases, is that in terms of Section 56 of the Act the Board can claim arrears of the electricity charges for a period of two years alone. It is contended that the bills for the supply of electricity were issued between the months of March to October, 2008 but with effect from 01.04.2004 i.e. for the period exceeding two years. Therefore, such recovery is not tenable. We find that in the writ petition, no such assertion based upon Section 56 of the Act has been made. Even otherwise, we find that Section 56 of the Act deals with power of disconnection of supply in default of payment of the electricity charges without prejudice to the rights of the Licensee in a suit. The bar under sub-section 2 of Section 56 of the Act is in respect of the action under the aforesaid Section. Therefore, Section 56 of the Act is a provision which gives right to the Board to recover the arrears of electricity on the threat of disconnection of the supply. Such arrears are restricted for a period of two years, but it does not wipe off the recovery of arrears for more than two years. The right to recover arrears by way of suit has been specifically protected. Therefore, whether the electric supply can be disconnected in terms of Section 56 on the basis of arrears claimed, require verification of the facts. Therefore, we give liberty to the consumers to submit representation, if so advised, in respect of claim of arrears for a period exceeding two years. As and when such representations are filed, the Board shall consider the same and initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery either in terms of Section 56 of the Act or in other manner authorized by law. It is evident from the aforesaid that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of the decision rendered in LPA No. 605 of 2009, as extracted above also. The petitioner being a party to the said judgment is obviously bound by the judgment and no further plea in this regard can be permitted to be raised. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has already filed SLP against the said order.
(2.) In this view of the matter, the instant writ petition is a total abuse of the process of law and has resulted in sheer wastage of time of the court.
(3.) At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the instant writ petition. The prayer is accepted, however, subject to deposit of Rs.20,000/-as costs.;