Consumer Forums lack jurisdiction to adjudicate electricity billing disputes under the Electricity Act, as such matters must be addressed through designated authorities and established statutory remedies.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner requests for a directive from this Court to quash the proceedings before DCDRC, Ganjam and for all DCDRCs in Odisha to refrain from entertaining complaints related to electricity billing disputes and assessments under the Electricity Act, 2003.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner is an electrical engineer with the Distribution Licensee (TPCODL) engaged in the retail sale and supply of electricity in the Southern Zone of Odisha since 2021. The opposite party no. 1 has been a consumer of the petitioner since 2004.

(ii) A technician from the petitioner found the meter in the premises of opposite party no. 1 running 80% slow due to technical issues. Opposite party no. 1 paid the assessed amount for the meter’s slow running on 04.03.2016 and the company was directed to replace the meter.

(iii) On 28.06.2023, during a routine physical verification, the consumer was found to have been tampering with the energy meter.

(iv) Consequently, on 30.06.2023, the petitioner issued a provisional order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, demanding Rs.60,810/- for unauthorized use of electricity. Opposite party No. 1 responded to this order on 26.07.2023, requesting the proceedings be dropped.

(v) Opposite party no. 1 then filed Complaint Case No. 102 of 2023 in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Ganjam, and subsequent actions of raising a demand towards Provisional and Final Assessment Orders under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

(vi) During the pendency of the consumer case, the petitioner disconnected the power supply to opposite party no. 1 in February-March 2024.

(vii)Resultantly, the DCDRC, Ganjam ordered the petitioner to restore the power supply upon payment of 10% of the total arrear amount. But the Opposite Party No.1, could not make the payment, and electricity could not restore.

(viii) Aggrieved by the order of DCDRC, petitioner approached this Court seeking intervention of this Court to quash the proceedings in Complaint Case No.102 of 2023. The petitioner requests a directive for all DCDRCs in Odisha to refrain from entertaining complaints related to electricity billing disputes and assessments under the Electricity Act, 2003.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The petitioner submitted that the DCDRC has overstepped its jurisdiction by entertaining complaints related to electricity billing disputes and assessments, which should be adjudicated under the Electricity Act, 2003.

(ii) He further submitted that the actions of DCDRC are contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Anis Ahmed, 2013 (8) SCC 491 which held that Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019, do not have the jurisdiction to entertain such complaints.

(iii) He contended that the DCDRC’s actions are in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which mandates adherence to the law declared by the Supreme Court.

(iv) He further contended that the Electricity Act, 2003, provides a specific mechanism for appeal under Section 127 for disputes regarding assessments under Section 126 . The consumer should have pursued this statutory remedy instead of approaching the DCDRC.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1:

4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 earnestly made the followi