IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards in billing disputes, affirming that natural justice principles apply even in electronic billing contexts.

JUDGMENT :

Prateek Jalan, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the following reliefs:-

“(a) A direction, order or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing/setting aside the impugned demand of Rs.1,68,598/ in the bill month of November 2004 showing arrears of Rs.1,36,489/ on the basis of the bill for billing month of Oct 2004 raised against K. No. 9JP802140748/0000/JANAKPURI.

(b) pass a direction to the respondent to raise the correct bill by withdrawing the penalty of LIP from the date of its levy.

(c) award the costs of present proceedings in favour of the petitioner;

(d) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The petitioner was running a car dealership and workshop from premises No. A-100, Phase-II, Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi. It has challenged a bill issued by the respondent for electricity charges for the month of November 2004 [Annexure P-10 to the writ petition], to the extent that the bill reflects arrears of Rs.136489.20/-. The amount of Rs.1,36,489/- has been carried over from the bill for the month of October 2004 [Annexure P-8 to the writ petition].

3. The dispute urged is with regard to the Maximum Demand Indicator [“MDI”] reflected in the said bill as more than 100 KW, so as to render the petitioner liable to tariff in the category of “Large Industrial Power” [“LIP”] instead of “Small Industrial Power” [“SIP”].

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. A preliminary objection has been taken in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent on 17.01.2005, and has also been noted in the order of the Court dated 10.11.2023, to the effect that a dispute as to the correctness of the bill is inappropriate for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Akhil Hasija, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum [“CGRF”] constituted under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 [“the Act”], against which the petitioner would also have a remedy of appeal before the Ombudsman under Section 42(6) of the Act. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. and Others, (2007) 8 SCC 381, wherein it was held that the exclusive remedy before the CGRF and the Ombudsman are available for resolution of “all the individual grievances of consumers”. Mr. Hasija therefore submits that the petitioner ought to be relegated to that remedy.

6. Mr. Fanish K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that existence of an alternative remedy cannot be an absolute bar to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in respect of an allegation of violation of natural justice and of the prevailing regulatory regime.

7. The submission of Mr. Jain on this point is, in my view, correct. While the CGRF provides an adequate remedy for agitating consumer grievances, as held by the Supreme Court, no absolute bar on the exercise of writ jurisdiction can be imposed by statute. The judgment of the Supreme Court also arose in the context of jurisdiction of the Electricity Regulatory Commission [“ERC”], and not of the writ Court. The present petition has been pending for 20 years, and I am therefore inclined to consider the petitioner’s submission, albeit limited to the question of natural justice and violation of the Regulations in these proceedings.

8. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the applicable Regulations, at the relevant time, was the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Performance Standards – Metering & Billing) Regulations, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as “2002 Regulations”], dated 17.08.2002, issued by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission [“DERC”] under Section 61 of the Delhi Electricity R