High Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving technical arithmetic calculations in electricity billing.

The petitioner, an industrial unit in Kutch, holds a power connection from the respondent electricity company

Following inspections in 2018 and 2022, the respondent found the meter was running 83.70% slow due to technical tampering/damage

A supplementary bill of approximately ₹18.74 lakhs was issued for a six-month period

The petitioner challenged this before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), which upheld a revised bill of ₹16.89 lakhs

On further appeal, the Electricity Ombudsman, via order dated 15.07.2023, directed the respondent to treat specific dates as "tampering events" and issue a fresh bill considering the 83.70% slowness for the six-month period

The respondent issued a new bill for ₹16,01,742.45, which the petitioner challenged in the High Court, alleging it was not in accordance with the Ombudsman's specific calculation directions

1. Whether the revised supplementary electricity bill issued by the respondent company was in compliance with the directions issued by the Electricity Ombudsman

2. Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can sit in judgment over minute mathematical calculations of an electricity bill

The court's jurisdiction was governed by Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the scope of judicial review over administrative/quasi-judicial actions

Section 42(5) and 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which establish the CGRF and Electricity Ombudsman as the specialized statutory mechanisms for resolving consumer grievances

The primary legal principle applied is that writ courts generally refrain from adjudicating factual disputes involving complex arithmetic or auditing errors when a specialized statutory forum exists

Upon reviewing the provided calculation sheets (specifically columns 1 to 6), the Court observed that the respondent had indeed applied the 83.70% slowness rate as directed

The Court noted that the total bill amount had been reduced from ₹16.89 lakhs to ₹16.01 lakhs, indicating an attempt to comply with the Ombudsman's order

The Court reasoned that under Article 226, it is not the role of the High Court to perform an audit or correct alleged clerical errors in calculation

Since the respondent provided a calculation based on the required percentage, any residual grievance regarding "error in calculation" should be addressed before an appropriate statutory forum rather than through a writ petition

The Court held that it cannot interfere with calculation-based disputes under writ jurisdiction

The Court dismissed the petition and Rule was discharged with no order as to costs, granting a four-week extension of the interim relief to allow the petitioner to prefer an appeal