High Court should not adjudicate disputed facts regarding electricity billing when functional statutory alternate remedies exist.

The Respondent, an industrial entity, challenged demand notices issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Appellants) for recovery of monthly minimum charges totaling approximately Rs. 2.18 Crores.

The Board alleged that despite completing works for HT supply and issuing a notice on 28.04.2007, the Respondent failed to avail supply within the three-month statutory period.

The Respondent denied receipt of the first notice, claiming they only received a second notice dated 07.08.2007, and argued that the charges were inapplicable to an "additional load" scenario.

A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions on the grounds that the Board failed to prove service of the first notice.

The Board preferred these intra-court appeals.

1. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, should adjudicate complex factual disputes regarding the "readiness" of a consumer and the service of statutory notices.

2. Whether a writ petition is maintainable when specialized statutory alternate remedies are available under the Electricity Act, 2003, and the TNERC Supply Code.

The Court applied Clause 31 of the TNERC Electricity Distribution Code, which mandates that an HT consumer must avail supply within three months of a written notice or remain liable for monthly minimum charges.

It relied on Clause 18 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code and Section 42(5) & (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which establish the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) and the Electricity Ombudsman as the appropriate hierarchy for dispute resolution.

Further, the Court applied the precedent from *Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited* (2024) 8 SCC 513, holding that the Electricity Act is an exhaustive code and discretionary writ jurisdiction should be restrained where statutory remedies exist.

The Court observed that the core of the dispute—whether the notice dated 28.04.2007 was actually served—is a "trial-natured" factual controversy.

It reasoned that the Writ Court cannot conduct a "roving enquiry" into voluminous documents or selective evidence to determine "readiness" to supply or consume electricity, as doing so risks a miscarriage of justice.

The Court emphasized that the CGRF and Ombudsman are expert bodies designed to scrutinize original documents and oral evidence.

Consequently, the Court held that the Single Judge erred by bypassing the statutory machinery provided under the Electricity Act.

It held that writ petitions challenging demand notices are generally not maintainable unless there is a total lack of jurisdiction or proven *mala fides*.

The Respondent was granted liberty to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum within four weeks, with a direction to the Forum to decide the matter on merits by condoning the delay.