MP HC Gives Power Company Two Weeks To Decide Ex-Serviceman’s Rs 19.11 Lakh Electricity Bill And Scheme Grievance

The petitioner, an ex-serviceman, established an ice factory and obtained an electricity connection for seasonal use.

After the factory closed, he informed the respondents in 2019 and sought action concerning the connection and billing.

He claimed that outstanding dues rose to approximately ₹27 lakh during the COVID-19 pandemic, that he paid approximately ₹21 lakh under the Samadhan Yojana, and that the respondents subsequently raised a May 2026 bill for ₹19,11,896 plus surcharge.

He sought adjustment under the Maafi Yojana and relied on the respondents’ communication dated 08.04.2026, but said no final decision had been made and that his connection was disconnected in September 2026 without a hearing.

He also alleged that similarly situated consumers had received scheme benefits.

The respondents’ counsel appeared and took notice.

The Court cited no specific statute, regulation, or precedent.

It applied the principle that, where the relief sought is consideration of a grievance by the competent authority, the Court may direct that authority to consider the matter and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

Given the nature of the relief sought and the petitioner’s reliance on the 08.04.2026 communication, the Court considered it appropriate to have respondent No. 3 examine the grievance.

It did not decide whether the petitioner qualified for Samadhan or Maafi Yojana benefits, whether the bill was correctly raised, or whether the disconnection was lawful; those matters were left for independent consideration by the competent authority.

Respondent No. 3 was directed to consider the petitioner’s case in light of the communication dated 08.04.2026 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.