Patna High Court Refuses Writ In Electricity Billing Dispute Citing Alternative Remedy

Consumers cannot bypass statutory forums for electricity bill disputes, as the High Court reaffirms that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for the specialized redressal mechanism provided under the law.

Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy of the Patna High Court, while hearing a challenge against allegedly illegal electricity charges, declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy. The court heard a petition involving a dispute over billing for a period where the consumer claimed no electricity was consumed due to a defective meter.

Judicial Refusal to Bypass Statutory Mechanisms

The Court noted that the petitioner sought relief against electricity charges for a period when a meter was allegedly removed due to being defective. However, the bench observed that the framework of the Electricity Act, 2003 specifically provides for a dedicated forum to address such grievances. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of approaching the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, in respect of the reliefs sought in paragraph 1 of the Writ petition, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ petition."

The Court has the following directions:

"8. Without going into the merits or demerits of the case, the present Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy by approaching the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum for redressal of his grievance within a period of one month from today.

9. In the event such an application is filed within the aforesaid period, the concerned authority shall consider and dispose of the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, without going into the question of limitation, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such application.

10. It is needless to mention that before passing any orders, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing. Any orders passed shall be communicated to the petitioner."

Background

The petitioner, Binod Kumar Singh, moved the High Court seeking to quash electricity charges for the period between October 27, 2020, and November 28, 2021. The petitioner contended that during this time, his meter had been removed due to a defect and a fresh meter was only installed after a lapse of one year following a complaint to the Lok Shikayat Niwaran Padadhikari. He argued that since no electricity was consumed, the billing and late fees were illegal.

The respondents, appearing for the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. (SBPDCL), raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ. They relied on coordinate bench decisions in Shashi Bhushan Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. and Ayodhya Nath Rai vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., where the court had similarly directed petitioners to the statutory forum. The Court agreed with this precedent, maintaining the consistency of the judicial approach towards Electricity Act, 2003 disputes.

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1750 of 2023
Case Title: Binod Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Parmanand Kumar, Advocate; M/s Priyajeet Pandey, Meghna, Kaustubh Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): M/s Anand Kumar, Rajan Prakash, Pragya Kiran, Advocates for SBPDCL

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PAT) 3287