Electricity arrears constitute a charge on premises, recoverable from the lawful owner irrespective of consent.

The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of premises comprising Plot No. 1305 of Khata No. 257/181 and Plot No. 13057/18521 of Khata No. 257/182 at Khetrajpur, Sambalpur.

He held one electricity connection in his own name. A separate connection had been granted to Sanjay Kumar Agrawalla, the petitioner’s son, for a portion of the same premises under a separate consumer number.

Sanjay defaulted in payment of electricity dues amounting to ₹1,35,679 up to April 2016, resulting in disconnection of that supply.

The petitioner contended that the connection had been obtained without his knowledge or consent and that he was not liable for Sanjay’s dues.

After the petitioner’s challenge before the High Court was disposed of with liberty to approach the Grievance Redressal Forum, the Forum rejected his complaint on 19 August 2021. The Ombudsman-II, Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission, affirmed that decision on 7 March 2022.

The petitioner consequently challenged the Ombudsman’s order before the High Court.

Whether unpaid electricity dues arising from a separate electricity connection granted to Sanjay Kumar Agrawalla could constitute a charge or encumbrance upon the premises and be recovered from the petitioner as the lawful owner in possession.

Whether the petitioner’s lack of knowledge or consent to the electricity connection excluded his liability under Section 17(vi) of the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019.

Whether the concurrent findings of the Grievance Redressal Forum and the Ombudsman disclosed any perversity or infirmity warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Section 17(vi) of the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019 provides that unpaid electricity charges or other sums due from a deceased consumer, erstwhile owner, or occupier constitute a charge on the premises and are recoverable from the legal representative, successor-in-interest, or new owner/occupier having lawful occupation of the premises.

The Supreme Court’s decision in K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, (2023) 14 SCC 431, establishes that subordinate legislation framed under Sections 50 and 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 may create a statutory charge or impose conditions for recovery of arrears from a subsequent owner or occupier of the premises.

The Court also applied the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent factual findings absent perversity, relying on MSEDCL v. APML & Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 233.

The Court found that Sanjay had admittedly obtained a separate electricity connection for a portion of the petitioner’s premises and had left ₹1,35,679 unpaid, leading to disconnection.

Under Section 17(vi), the liability attached to the premises rather than being confined to the individual consumer who incurred the dues.

Consistent with K.C. Ninan, the Court held that the electricity distribution framework could create such a charge to protect the financial interests of public utilities and ensure recovery of electricity arrears.

The petitioner’s assertion that the connection was granted without his consent did not alter the statutory character of the charge, since Section 17(vi) made no distinction between connections obtained with or without the lawful owner’s consent.

The petitioner was therefore liable as the lawful owner in possession.

The Court further held that the petitioner had identified no perversity in the concurrent findings of the Forum and the Ombudsman warranting constitutional interference.

Finding no infirmity or perversity in the orders of the Grievance Redressal Forum and the Ombudsman, the Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.