The Supreme Court has thrown out an appeal filed by Dakschinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (DVVNL), a Uttar Pradesh power distribution company, against one of its own consumers. The dispute centred on a huge electricity bill the company raised almost a decade after the events it related to, and the top court found the demand simply could not survive.
Background of the Case
The story goes back to 1997. A consumer applied to DVVNL for a hefty 4000 KVA electricity connection. Since the company could not arrange that much power right away, it released only 2000 KVA and signed a formal agreement for the rest to follow later. In January 1998, DVVNL informed the consumer that the balance 2000 KVA was now available, but said a fresh agreement would be needed first. The consumer wrote back in September 1998 saying it was no longer interested in the extra load.
Nothing more happened for years. Then, out of nowhere, in February 2007, DVVNL raised a bill of Rs 57,74,164 towards Minimum Consumption Guarantee Charges for the period February to September 1998, treating the consumer as if it had actually been given and used the full 4000 KVA.
The consumer challenged the bill. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum returned a split verdict, effectively leaving the consumer without relief. On further appeal, the Electricity Ombudsman quashed the demand outright, holding that the consumer never consented to the extra load and that the additional power was never even released to it.
DVVNL then moved the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench, also questioning a UPERC regulation that let only consumers, not distribution companies, approach the Ombudsman. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 06.01.2012, agreeing that Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 gives this remedy solely to consumers, and separately holding that the 2007 demand for 1998 dues was hopelessly late.
Supreme Court's Observations
Before the Supreme Court, DVVNL's counsel did not press the regulation challenge with much force and instead leaned on the limitation question. The bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria relied on its earlier ruling in Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Rahamatullah Khan, observing:
"The liability to pay arises on the consumption of electricity. The obligation to pay would arise when the bill is issued by the licensee company, quantifying the charges to be paid. Electricity charges would become 'first due' only after the bill is issued to the consumer, even though the liability to pay may arise on the consumption of electricity."
The Court also noted that while Section 56(2) does not stop a licensee from raising a supplementary demand after two years, it does restrict disconnection of supply beyond that period, and any such demand must still be justified on facts.
Decision
Applying this reasoning to the facts, the Supreme Court held that DVVNL could not sustain a demand raised in 2007 for a load that was never accepted or supplied back in 1998.
The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's order upholding the Ombudsman's decision was left undisturbed.
Case Details
Case Title: Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Vidut Lokpal, Uttar Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5099 of 2013
Judge: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Decision Date: September 10, 2026
-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
