N. R. SAINIK vs THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN

1

CGHC010371002023 2026:CGHC:38412
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4804 of 2023
1 - N. R. Sainik S/o Late Shri C. L. Sainik Aged About 72 Years R/o
Patel Mohall, Ward No. 40, Vivekananad Nagar, Torwa, Tashil And,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - The Electricity Ombudsman Chhattisgarh State Electricity
Regulatory Building Compound, Irrigation Colony Shanti Nagar Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Electricity Consumer Complaint Redress Forum Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Executive Engineer (City) Division- East, C.G. State Power
Distribution Company Limited, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Assistant Engineer (Zone) C.G. State Power Distribution Company
Limited, Torwa, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate.

2
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
31/08/2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner
for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent no. 3 & 4 to verify the actual reading
of said meter and issue the revised electric bills to the
petitioner, in the interest of Justice.
10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this
Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour
of the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
application submitted by the petitioner seeking inspection and
testing of the electricity meter in question has not yet been
considered or decided by the concerned authorities. He further
submits that, without considering the said application, a demand
was raised against the petitioner, pursuant to which the petitioner
has deposited the demanded amount, without prejudice to his
rights and contentions. It is, therefore, submitted that the
petitioner's application seeking inspection of the meter may kindly

3
be considered and decided by the concerned authorities in
accordance with law.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that, at the initial stage, the petitioner did not permit the
respondent authorities to replace/change the electricity meter
despite the request made by the authorities. He further submits
that, subsequently, when the disputed meter was inspected by the
concerned authorities, the same was found to be in proper
working condition. In view thereof, the competent forum, after
considering the material available on record, passed an order
against the petitioner. The said order was thereafter challenged by
the petitioner before the concerned Electricity Ombudsman;
however, the challenge was also rejected and the order passed by
the competent forum was affirmed. It is, therefore, submitted that
concurrent findings have been recorded against the petitioner by
the competent authorities and there is no apparent illegality or
infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner
has already deposited the demanded amount and, therefore, the
present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be
dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
material available on record.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and having
regard to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the

4
parties, it is apparent from the record that the disputed meter was
subsequently inspected by the concerned authorities and was
found to be in proper working condition. The competent forum,
upon consideration of the material available on record, has
passed an order against the petitioner, which was thereafter
assailed before the concerned Electricity Ombudsman. The
Electricity Ombudsman has also considered the matter and
declined to interfere with the order passed by the competent
forum. Thus, concurrent findings have been recorded by the
competent authorities against the petitioner with regard to the
functioning and condition of the disputed meter.
6. In view of the aforesaid concurrent findings, this Court finds no
sufficient ground or apparent illegality warranting interference with
the impugned orders in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is
liable to be dismissed.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge

Raghu Jat