Writ petition challenging electricity billing is not maintainable where a statutory consumer remedy exists.

The petitioner, widow of Late Sita Ram Das, challenged allegedly excessive electricity bills issued in her deceased husband’s name. She asserted that electricity consumption at the premises was not commensurate with the substantially inflated bills, that her husband had paid approximately ₹35,000 per month from his pension towards the bills, and that she had paid more than ₹13 lakhs in total. She sought correction of the bills, action against responsible officials, and compensation with 8% interest.

During the proceedings, the respondents objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Whether the writ petition concerning disputed electricity bills was maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Whether the Court should examine the merits of the petitioner’s claims for bill correction, compensation, and action against officials in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

The Court applied Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides a statutory mechanism for an electricity consumer to approach the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum for redressal of grievances.

The Court followed the established principle that the High Court ordinarily should not entertain a writ petition where an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy is available, particularly in matters involving disputed electricity billing. It also relied on the orders of coordinate Benches in Shashi Bhushan Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 4670 of 2023, and Ayodhya Nath Rai v. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 7317 of 2026, where similar petitions were disposed of with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy.

The Court considered the nature of the reliefs sought—correction of allegedly inflated electricity bills, compensation, and consequential action against officials—and held that these grievances fell within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Since the statutory remedy was available and efficacious, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction. It did not adjudicate the correctness of the bills, the alleged payments, or the claim for compensation, and expressly left the merits open.

If such an application was filed within that period, the Forum was directed to decide it on its own merits and in accordance with law, without raising limitation, preferably within three months of filing. The petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity of hearing, and the decision was to be communicated to her. Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.