Bombay High Court: PIL Seeking Relief Against Excessive Electricity Bills Dismissed

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

A PIL was filed in the Bombay HC seeking relief against the inflated electricity bills received from March to May. The Court dismissed the PIL and directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate redressal forum.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The petitioner contended that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission suspended its activities related to the power supply. Due to this, the electricity bills issued were on an average basis. The petitioner relied on a newspaper report for this submission. The petitioner also contended that the bills issued were without any proper assessment.

Grounds of Challenge

The respondent submitted that due to the pandemic, the regulators issued the electricity bills on average consumption of three months. Many notifications on the method for calculation of units and electricity bills were issued to the general public. The petitioner referred to a link provided for verification of bills. Hence, the consumers may use this for redressal of their grievances. Detailed notes on the same have also been issued by the regulators for perusal by the public. The respondent contended that the petitioner failed to approach the Grievance Redressal Mechanism laid out in the Electricity Act, 2003 (“Act’).

Petitioner’s Prayers

The petitioner approached the Court with the following prayers –

  1. Direct the respondents to extend the benefit of waiver of fixed and other charges for six months;
  2. To direct the respondents to continue charging as per the tariff that existed before 01.04.2020;
  3. To constitute a fact-finding committee to investigate the sudden inflation in electricity bills, the rise in tariff from 01.04.2020 and recommend corrective steps for the benefit of the consumers.

Court’s Observations

The Court observed that only prayer clause ‘A’ is substantive and calls for consideration. In view of the prayer clause ‘B’, the Court held that it couldn’t fix a tariff for the consumption of electricity. This is for the reason that it amounts to interfering in a policy decision and thus, would be outside the scope of powers of the Court. Prayer clause ‘C’ relies on the assumption that there was mischief in the calculation of electricity bills. However, it is a general submission and hence, the Court cannot consider it.

The Court also observed that the redressal mechanism provided to consumers by the Act consisted of a three-tier system. First, the consumers could approach the Internal Grievance Redressal forum (“IGRF”). If the party is aggrieved by the decision of the IGRF, they can file an appeal to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (“CGRF”). If the party is aggrieved by the decision of the CGRF, they can then approach the Electricity Ombudsman.

Court’s Decision

The Court observed that the Act provided for redressal mechanisms. Despite this, the petitioner directly approached the Court. Since a forum was available, the Court directed the petitioners to approach the IGRF. In light of the aforesaid, the Court dismissed the PIL.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for 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

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

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...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -