The High Court held that the writ petition filed to challenge an electricity bill and demand was not maintainable as the petitioner failed to exhaust the alternative remedy available under the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19287 of 2015
======================================================
Ram Sewak Mahto son of Late Ganga Ram Mahto, Resident of VillageKeota, P.O. and P.S.- Dalsingsarai and District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Abu Shajar, Advocate : Mr. Md. Abu Haidar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate : Mr. Ratan Prasad Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL ORDER
11 04-04-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19287 of 2015(11) dt.04-04-2024 2/5
fixed rate as per the agreement between the petitioner and the respondents and to accept the full payment of Rs. 10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only) which was deposited in pursuance of impugned notice issued by the respondents.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19287 of 2015(11) dt.04-04-2024 3/5
of electricity was restored.
(i). defect or deficiency in electricity supply or service provided by the licensee;
(ii). unfair or restrictive trade practices of licensee in providing electricity services;
(iii). charging of a price in excess of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19287 of 2015(11) dt.04-04-2024 4/5
price fixed by the Commission for supply of electricity and allied services;
(iv). errors in billing
(v). erroneous disconnection of supply;
(vi). electricity services which are unsafe or hazardous to public life in contravention of the provisions of any law or rule in force; or
(vii) any other grievance connected with the supply of electricity by the licensee to the consumers except grievances arising under Sections 126, 135 to 139, 143, 152 and 161 of the Act.
no such agreement between the petitioner and the respondents to calculate the Electricity Bill on the basis of fixed average rate as alleged by the petitioner, and further, the petitioner was allowed to made part payment of outstanding dues accumulated due to non-payment of consumption Bill since long time, and therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition as it is not maintainable.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19287 of 2015(11) dt.04-04-2024 5/5
remedy available for the petitioner. Without availing the alternative remedy the present writ petitioner was filed and, therefore, this Court is of the considerable view that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Further, the rights of the petitioner are no way infringed in any manner.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Shanu /-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking quashing of an electricity bill is maintainable where an alternative remedy under the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum is available.
Whether the petitioner availed the alternative remedy provided under Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Sewak Mahto
Bihar State Electricity Board
G. Anupama Chakravarty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
