Electricity Bills Based On Metered Consumption Final: Uttarakhand HC

The Uttarakhand High Court has slammed the door on industrial consumers seeking to evade electricity charges by citing closure of units, ruling that concurrent findings of actual metered consumption cannot be overturned under supervisory jurisdiction. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari presided over the matter, hearing a challenge against orders passed by statutory authorities under the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner sought to quash the demand for electricity charges despite having an active connection during the disputed period.

Key Takeaways

Sanctity of Metered Data

Actual MRI reports showing consistent consumption history will prevail over claims of unit closure or disconnection applications.

Limits of Article 227 Jurisdiction

High Courts will not disturb concurrent findings of fact reached by the Forum and Ombudsman unless there is a manifest error of law or perversity.

Bar on New Pleadings

Factual grounds not raised before the Consumer Forum or Ombudsman cannot be introduced for the first time during writ proceedings.

Findings On Electricity Consumption

The Uttarakhand High Court noted that both the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the Ombudsman had arrived at a factual finding that the demand raised by the Uttarakhand Power Corporation (UPCL) was based on actual metered consumption. Despite the petitioner's argument that the unit was shut down by the State Pollution Control Board, the MRI report indicated a consistent consumption history even after the application for disconnection was filed.

The Uttarakhand High Court observed that “Since the Forum as well as the Ombudsman have considered and discussed all relevant aspects and have arrived at a finding that demand raised by the UPCL is as per the actual metered consumption, therefore, this Court do not find any scope for interference while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.”

Ratio

In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court shall not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact regarding actual electricity consumption recorded by statutory authorities under the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly when such findings are supported by technical evidence like MRI reports.

Background

The petitioner, M/s Malik Industries, held a 25 kw HT Power connection and applied for disconnection on April 19, 2018. However, the meter was physically removed only on May 31, 2019. UPCL raised a demand of ₹1,05,056 for the intervening period. The petitioner first approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which rejected the complaint on August 30, 2019. A subsequent representation to the Ombudsman under Section 42(6) was also rejected on October 31, 2019.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the unit was closed since 2016 due to Pollution Control Board orders and that UPCL was negligent in removing the meter. The respondent (UPCL) countered that the closure argument was never pleaded before the lower forums and that the MRI reports proved continued consumption. The Uttarakhand High Court agreed with the respondent, holding that the metered consumption affirmed by two forums below could not be disturbed.

Case Details:
Case No.: WPMS/707/2020
Neutral Citation: 2026:UHC:8543
Case Title: M/s Malik Industries Versus Executive Engineer
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(UTT) 5816