The main legal point established in the judgment is that the DVC could claim dues on the basis of differential amounts of charges in 2021, after the final tariffs were fixed in 2020. However, the DVC was not entitled to charge any DPS for defaults committed prior to the fixation of final retail tariff and no disconnection could be made as there were no defaults in the first place on the part of the consumers regarding payment of electricity charges on the basis of the final retail tariff.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The above-captioned ten writ petitions are heard and adjudicated together since the questions involved therein are similar in nature.

2. a common question which has arisen for consideration in three of the writ petitions, bearing WPa No.4168 of 2021 (Debanjana Hard Coke Private Limited and another vs. West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission and others), WPa No.15432 of 2021 (Jay ambey Metals Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission and others) and WPa 16040 of 2021 (Surya alloy Industries Ltd. and another vs. West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission and others), which is different from those arising in the other seven, is :-

i. Whether the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) can, in 2020-21, claim dues on the basis of bills raised during the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013.

3. The other cardinal questions involved in all the ten writ petitions are the same, being :-

ii. Whether Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) could be charged by the DVC from its consumers on the basis of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) input tariff and/or otherwise, before the final retail tariff is settled by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (WBERC), for the periods 2006-2009 and 2009-2013;

iii. Whether the subsequent disconnection notices given by the DVC to its consumers are de hors the law, in particular, Section 56(2) of the Electricity act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2003 act').

4. at the outset, the DVC as well as the WBERC raise a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the writ petitions. The definition of 'Consumer Grievance', as given in the prevalent Regulations issued under the 2003 act by the WBERC, as amended under the 2020 Regulation, it is argued, includes every possible dispute contemplated under the 2003 act. Such grievances are referable to the Forum created under the Regulations, being the respective Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO) and the Regional Grievance Redressal Officer (RGRO). as such, it is argued that, in the absence of any challenge to the vires of the Regulations, the same prevails.

5. Since a special statute with a special forum is required to be exhausted before a party can approach a writ Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ court, it is submitted, ought to restrain its hands in the matters and relegate those to the GRO and/or RGRO concerned.

6. In this context, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the DVC relies upon (1983) 2 SCC 433 [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and another Vs. State of Orissa and others], (2005) 8 SCC 264 [U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and another], (2014) 1 SCC 603 [Commissioner of Income Tax and others Vs. Chhabil Dass agarwal].

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the WBERC contends that the disputes relating to the bills for electric charges raised by the DVC have to be raised before the concerned GRO and/or Central Grievance Redressal Officer (CGRO), as contemplated under Sections 42(5), 42(6) and 52(5) of the 2003 act, read with Regulation 3.5 of the 2013 WBERC Regulations.

8. It is argued that, in view of availability of such alternative efficacious remedy, the writ Court cannot be moved and the appeals are not maintainable under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. For such proposition, learned Counsel places reliance on (2005) 8 SCC 264 [U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and another], (2011) 2 SCC 575 [Transport and Dock Workers Union and others Vs. Mumbai Port Trust and another], (2013) 5 SCC 470 [Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and another Vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and another].

10. The dispute resolution mechanism within the purview of the 2003 act and the Regulations have been upheld and approved by the Supreme Court in (2007) 8 SCC 381[Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. and others].

11. No exceptional case for seekin