Writ jurisdiction does not warrant interference with concurrent findings that an electricity meter functioned properly.

The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the Electricity Consumer Complaint Redress Forum, Bilaspur, and affirmed by the Electricity Ombudsman, concerning the functioning of his disputed electricity meter and the consequential electricity demand.

He sought verification/testing of the meter and issuance of revised bills.

The petitioner contended that his application for inspection and testing had not been considered before the demand was raised, although he deposited the demanded amount without prejudice to his rights.

The respondents submitted that the petitioner had initially refused replacement of the meter, and that, upon subsequent inspection, the meter was found to be functioning properly.

They further contended that both the competent forum and the Electricity Ombudsman had rejected the petitioner’s claim.

The Court applied the settled principle governing exercise of writ jurisdiction that interference is not warranted where competent authorities have considered the material on record and recorded concurrent findings, unless the impugned orders disclose apparent illegality, jurisdictional error, or other sufficient ground for judicial intervention.

The Court also relied on the factual finding, recorded by the competent authorities after inspection, that the disputed electricity meter was functioning properly.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court noted that the disputed meter had subsequently been inspected by the concerned authorities and found to be in proper working condition.

The Electricity Consumer Complaint Redress Forum considered the available material and passed an order against the petitioner, and the Electricity Ombudsman thereafter examined the challenge and declined to interfere.

In light of these concurrent findings, the Court held that the petitioner had not demonstrated any apparent illegality or sufficient ground for exercising writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner’s deposit of the demanded amount did not alter the position, particularly when the meter’s proper functioning had already been affirmed by the competent authorities.

It found no sufficient ground or apparent illegality warranting interference with the orders of the Electricity Consumer Complaint Redress Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman.

The writ petition was consequently dismissed as devoid of merit.