4.4. It is contended by Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that Rule 6 of the Electricity (Rights of Consumers) Rules, 2020 is framed by the Central Government in exercise of the statutory powers conferred by SubSection (1) read with clause (z) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 176 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Rule 6(1) of the said Rules deals with 'Billing and Payment' and provides that Tariff for each category of consumers shall be displayed on distribution licensee's website and consumers shall be notified of change in tariff including fuel surcharge and other charges, a full billing cycle ahead of time, through distribution licensee's website as well as through energy bills. Rule 6(2) provides that licensee shall prepare the bill for every billing cycle based on actual meter reading and as per Clause 4.2.2.1 of Electricity Supply Code, billing cycle or billing frequency means 'monthly bills'. In the case at hand, the Licensee never notified the petitioner prior to issuance of letter dated 18.09.2014 that it would be liable for payment of tariff at 10 times of the recorded meter reading. As such, the bill is not sustainable in law. As per Rule 6(9) of the aforesaid Rules, the Licensee can issue maximum two provisional or part bills in a financial year. The impugned bill sought to convey a message as if the bills issued during the period from 23.07.2011 to 07.08.2014 were issued on provisional or part basis and the same is sought to be revised by issuing the impugned bill, that too, covering the period of more than 3 financial years which is not permissible in terms of the aforesaid Rule. Further, Rule 6(10) of aforesaid Rules provides that no bill can be issued after expiry of 60 days and if any bill is issued not exceeding 60 days, the consumer is entitled to rebate of
