Bombay High Court Directs Consumer Aggrieved Over Inflated Electricity Bills to Grievance Redressal Forum

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

Writ Petition filed in the Bombay High Court against the inflated electricity bills. Bombay High Court upholds an order passed by the same court in a similar matter. It directs the petitioner to approach the Grievance Redressal Forum.

Brief Facts of the case 

The consumers received exorbitant electricity bills during the worldwide pandemic of COVID-19. The respondents have also threatened the consumers with discontinuation of electricity if the bills aren’t cleared.

Respondent’s Submissions

The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the petition instituted by the petitioner. The respondents rely on a judgment passed in PIL No. 41 of 2020 (“aforesaid Judgment”) by the Bombay High Court in a similar matter. Bombay HC held that the Grievance Redressal Mechanism instituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 was enough to redress grievances related to electricity bills. The respondents submit that the concerns raised by the petitioners have been addressed in the aforesaid Judgment. Hence, the present PIL must be disposed of. 

The respondent also brings to the notice of the court a press note issued by the Electricity Commission. It highlights specific points issued by the Commissions for the benefit of the consumers. 

Petitioner’s Submissions

In response to the objections raised by the respondents, the petitioner contends that due to the ongoing lockdown, it is impractical for the consumers to approach the Grievance Redressal Officer. Thus, the grievance redressal mechanism fails to serve as an efficient remedy. The petitioner also submits that the distribution licensees are issuing notices to the consumers threatening to disconnect electricity if the bills aren’t paid within the due date. Due to the presence of these extraordinary circumstances, the Bombay HC must intervene.

Court’s Observations

The court agrees with the decision passed in Mhaibub D. Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Furthermore, observes that it covers the concerns of the present petition.

The court observes that the press note issued by the Commission is enough to fulfil prayer (a) of the petition.

In respect of prayer (b), the court observes that the revised tariff is for the benefit of the consumers. In case the respondents fail to follow the aforesaid, the consumers have the option to approach the Grievance Redressal Officer.

In respect of prayer (c) seeking concessions, the court relies on K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors. To reject the said prayer.

In respect of prayer (d) and (e) on levying of penalty and disconnection of the electricity, the court opined that the press note fulfilled the requirements.

The court thus observed that no intervention by way of Writ was required.

Court’s Decision

The court states that it is open to each consumer to avail the remedy made available under the press note. The Grievance Redressal Officer must take cognizance of the grievances and must promptly decide the same. The court directs the respondents to abide by the terms of the press note issued by the Commission until it remains in force. In light of the observations and directions issued, the court disposed of the present petition.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -