Writ petition by an electricity consumer against supplementary billing and Ombudsman orders was disposed of by directing it to pursue appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, with authorities to decide afresh on merits within three months without limitation objections.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2024:CGHC:44334
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2226 of 2016
... Petitioner
versus
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate
K GOWRI SANKARA RAO
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Order on Board
Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2024.11.14 14:54:20 +0530
13/11/2024
2
the supplementary bill and demand note dated 29/03/2012 issued by the respondent No.2.
(ii) According to the petitioner, all of a sudden a suo moto inspection of metering points of Crushing Plant, SS-I and SS-II was conducted by the Respondent No.2 on 26/02/2011 at NMDC Bacheli, Deposit No.5. On the basis of said inspection, a supplementary bill of Rs. 38,48,536/for January, 2005 to January, 2011 was raised on 29/03/2012 by the Respondent No. 2 on the pretext that all three meters are meant for industrial use and not for domestic purpose and therefore, the petitioner
3
is liable to pay industrial tariff for electricity used for lighting and ventilation in the Factory and Mine contrary to clause 30 of HT agreement, which allows the petitioner to use 10% of industrial supply at domestic tariff if the same is used for lighting and ventilation in a Factory and mine.
(iii) Further case of the petitioner is that the said bill and demand for tariff change was raised in violation of clause 7.29 of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Supply Code, 2011 (for short ‘the Code’) without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity to give explanation. The petitioner challenged the said demand and supplementary bills before the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Consumer Forum but the Forum failed to appreciate the provisions of agreement and confirmed the demand raised by the Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 22/05/2015. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Forum, the petitioner approached Respondent No.3 which was also dismissed and subsequently review petition was also dismissed. Thus, this petition.
4
conducted after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He would further submit that the instant petition is not maintainable because the petitioner is having remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’) by questioning the supplementary bill and demand note.
5
said exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date
of presentation of the appeal.
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge
Gowri
1 issue framed by the court
Should the petitioner's grievance over a supplementary electricity bill be resolved through the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act rather than in writ proceedings?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
N.M.D.C. Limited, Bacheli Complex Bailadila Iron Ore Mines
Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its Managing Director
Superintendent Engineer (O&M), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Jagdalpur Circle
Electricity Ombudsmen (Vidhyut Lokpal)
Bibhu Datta Guru
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
