Disputes over revised electricity bills must be pursued before the CGRF under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act.

The petitioner applied for a 1 KW domestic electricity connection for his residence at Maqsoodpur, Hajipur.

The petitioner claimed that the connection was disconnected on 07.11.1992 after he sold the property and requested disconnection. Despite the alleged disconnection, bills were subsequently issued, including bills in 2000, 2013, 25.03.2022 and 01.11.2022, the last being for Rs. 9,74,562.

The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court, which directed the electricity authorities to inspect the premises and pass an appropriate order on his representation.

In the present proceedings, the respondents stated that, pursuant to the Court’s earlier direction, the bill had been revised to Rs. 81,653.27.

Whether the respondents had complied with the earlier direction of the High Court by revising the petitioner’s electricity bill and passing an appropriate order?

Whether the petitioner’s dispute regarding the revised electricity bill should be adjudicated by the High Court or pursued before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003?

The Court applied Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides a statutory remedy before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (“CGRF”) for grievances relating to electricity supply and billing.

The Court followed the principle that where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available, the High Court may decline to adjudicate the disputed merits in writ jurisdiction and direct the aggrieved party to pursue that remedy.

The Court noted that the present petition constituted the second round of litigation concerning the petitioner’s disputed electricity dues.

The respondents’ counter-affidavit disclosed that, pursuant to the earlier High Court order, the bill had been revised to Rs. 81,653.27. Since the petitioner’s remaining grievance concerned the correctness of the revised bill rather than a complete failure to act, the Court held that the dispute required adjudication by the specialised statutory forum.

Applying Section 42(6) and the alternative-remedy principle, the Court declined to examine the billing dispute on merits in the writ petition and directed the petitioner to approach the CGRF.

If the petitioner remained aggrieved by the revised bill, he was required to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with liberty to pursue that statutory remedy; any pending interlocutory application was also disposed of.