Writ relief over electricity billing disputes declined where an efficacious statutory grievance remedy exists.

The petitioner alleged that his electricity meter was removed on 27 October 2020 because it was defective and that a replacement meter was installed only on 28 November 2021. He sought correction of the bills for that period, asserting that he had no connection and consumed no electricity, and also sought exemption from late-payment charges.

The respondents submitted that he had an alternative statutory remedy before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and relied on two coordinate Bench orders.

Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition when the petitioner could seek redress before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003?

Whether the petitioner’s billing and late-charge grievances should be decided on their merits in the writ petition?

Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides a statutory forum—the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum—for consumer grievances concerning electricity supply.

Where that remedy is available and efficacious, the High Court may decline to entertain a writ petition and leave the petitioner to pursue the statutory process.

The Court considered the reliefs sought—correction of electricity bills and removal of late charges—and held that they fell within the grievance for which the petitioner could approach the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum under Section 42(5).

Finding that remedy alternative and efficacious, the Court declined to examine the billing dispute on its merits and disposed of the writ petition with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy.

It disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum within one month. If filed within that period, the application is to be decided on its merits and in accordance with law, without raising limitation, preferably within three months; the petitioner must be given an opportunity of hearing, and the decision communicated to him.