Nandan Kumar v. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited

Patna HC15 Apr 2025CWJC/3669/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternative remedy — maintainability of writ petition — electricity dues recovery — disconnection of supply — dues of deceased erstwhile consumer (died 2014) incorporated in bill — Clause 4.1 Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007 — Section 42(5) Electricity Act, 2003 — Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) — SBPDCL — Rs.4,44,540/- demanded — writ petition disposed with liberty to approach CGRF within four weeks; CGRF to decide within four weeks. Patna High Court, CWJC No.3669 of 2024, decided 15-04-2025, A. Abhishek Reddy, J.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without adjudication on merits, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the C.G.R.F. within four weeks raising all grounds; C.G.R.F. directed to decide the case within four weeks in accordance with law. ¶¶31

Nandan Kumar Vs The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be entertained by the High Court, or whether the petitioner's remedy lies in the alternative and effective statutory remedy of approaching the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. +2 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition on merits because the petitioner has an alternative and effective statutory remedy of approaching the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the C.G.R.F. and raise all grounds, if necessary, within four weeks.

¶¶29

Key takeaways

Direction to the C.G.R.F. to consider the petitioner's case and decide it within four weeks by passing necessary orders in accordance with law.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (A. Abhishek Reddy, J.), by order dated 15-04-2025 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3669 of 2024, disposed of a writ petition by Nandan Kumar against the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited and its officers challenging (i) a communication dated 22.4.2022 declaring Rs.4,44,540/- as outstanding against his premises, and (ii) disconnection of his electric supply on 15.5.2023 on account of alleged dues of an erstwhile consumer (who died in 2014) incorporated in his energy bill under Clause 4.1 of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007, despite a fresh connection granted on 6.5.2021 after certification of no dues. Without deciding the merits, the Court held that the petitioner had an alternative and effective statutory remedy under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, granted liberty to approach the C.G.R.F. within four weeks raising all grounds, and directed the C.G.R.F. to decide the case within four weeks in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3669 of 2024

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Nandan Kumar, son of Vinod Kumar Verma, Resident of Gosai Mohalla, Vikaramganj, P.S. Bikramganj, District Rohtas-802212.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, through its Managing Director.

¶7

The General Manager (Revenue), South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶8

The Electrical Executive Engineer, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Electric Supply Division, Rohtas.

¶9

The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub Division, Vikramganj, Rohtas.

¶10

The Junior Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Vikramganj, Rohtas.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

======================================================

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Suraj Samdarshi, Adv. For the SBPDCL : Mr. Kunal Tiwary, ASC ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER

¶15

14 15-04-2025 Heard the parties.

¶16

The present writ petition is filed for the following

¶17

relief(s):-

¶18

“i) For setting aside the communication dated 22.4.2022 issued by the respondent no. 5, whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs.4,44,540/- was declared to be an outstanding against the premise and for non-payment thereof the petitioner was threatened with disconnection of electric supply.

¶19

ii) For setting aside the communication

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.3669 of 2024(14) dt.15-04-2025 2/3

¶21

dated 15.5.2023 issued by the respondent no. 5, by which the electric supply of the petitioner has been disconnected on account of alleged dues of the erstwhile consumer, which was incorporated in the energy bill of the petitioner in terms of Clause 4.1 of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007.

¶22

iii) To hold and declare that the disconnection dated 15.5.2023 is illegal and arbitrary and restrain the respondents to levy any charges for the period of disconnection with effect from 15.5.2023. iv) To hold and declare that once the new electrical connection granted to the petitioner on 6.5.2021 after certifying that there was no dues, the action of the respondents in incorporating the dues of earlier consumer, who died way back in the year 2014, is contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 as also the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007.

¶23

v) For a direction to the respondent authorities to restore the electric supply of the petitioner forthwith, as Clause 4.1 of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007 mandates recovery of the outstanding dues, from another account of the defaulting consumer, and not otherwise.

¶24

vi) To grant any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner may be found entitled to

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.3669 of 2024(14) dt.15-04-2025 3/3

¶26

in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

Even though, the learned counsel appearing on

¶28

behalf of the petitioner has argued at length on merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition as the petitioner is having an alternative and effective statutory remedy of approaching the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶29

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the C.G.R.F. and raise all grounds if necessary within a period of four weeks from today.

¶30

On such case being filed, the C.G.R.F. shall consider the same and decide the case within a period of four weeks and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

¶31

With the above directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)

¶33

Bhardwaj/-

¶34

Nandan Kumar v. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandan Kumar v. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidya Bhushan Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Kedar Kumar Vs The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited

Sri Sanjay Thakur @ Sanjay Kumar Thakur Vs The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited

Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

M/S Satya Enterprises, Vs The State of Bihar