Back
2022 Supreme(MP) 739
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
PRAGATI INDIASTONE CRUSHER – APPELLANT
Versus
Madhya Pradesh POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LTD., JABALPUR & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
W. P. No. 1102 of 2022
Decided On : 26-02-2022
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is available to the litigant, they should pursue that remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the need to examine the terms of the contract in dispute.
Headnote:
Electricity Act 2003 - High Tension Electricity Supply - The court dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, stating that the petitioner should pursue the alternative remedy under the Electricity Act 2003. The dispute revolved around the terms of the agreement for high tension supply, and the court emphasized the need to examine the contract terms and pursue the available statutory forum for grievance redressal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a consumer of electricity, entered into an agreement for high tension electricity supply for a stone crusher. The petitioner approached the Electricity Consumers Grievance Redressal Forum against an alleged illegal electricity bill raised by the respondent-Discom.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that despite the availability of an alternative remedy under the Electricity Act 2003, the petitioner's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not to be entertained. The court emphasized the need to examine the terms of the agreement and pursue the available statutory forum for grievance redressal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the electricity bill raised by the respondent-Discom and the petitioner's entitlement to pursue a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution despite the availability of an alternative remedy under the Electricity Act 2003.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, they should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The dispute primarily related to the terms of the contract for high tension supply, and the court highlighted the need to examine the contract terms.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy in accordance with law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
ORDER : – The petitioner, who is consumer of respondent electricity distribution Company (Discom) entered into an agreement for high tension electricity supply for the purpose of stone crusher. The petitioner approached the Electricity Consumers Grievance Redressal Forum Jabalpur, which is a statutory forum constituted under section 42(5) of the Electricity Act 2003 against the alleged illegal electricity bill of the petitioner’s unit raised by respondent-Discom.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly admits that he has an alternative remedy under sub-section 6 of section 42 of the Electricity Act 2003 to approach the Ombudsman. However, he submits that there is no bar to entertain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He places reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Excise, (2015) 8 SCC 519 and also in the case of Management of MS Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, (1990) 2 SCC 48.
3. According to the petitioner, once the high tension connection was disconnected on 23-6-2021 the respondent-Discom was not legally entitled for raising any bill against the petitioner. However, the Electricity Consumer Redressal Forum vide impugned order dated 28-12-2021 (Annexure-P-1) rejected the complaint of the petitioner holding that the agreement period for the high tension supply was for a period of two years expiring on 16-7-2022 and, therefore, as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner is liable to make the payment of minimum charge and other applicable tariff in accordance with agreement.
4. There is no dispute with respect to the proposition of law as propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that despite availability of alternative remedy, the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the present case, essentially the terms of the agreement needs to be examined. The dispute, therefore, relates to terms of the contract. It is settled law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
5. In the instant case, having considered the submissions put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that keeping in mind the nature of grievance and the availability of efficacious alternative remedy before statutory forum, the present writ petition is not to be entertained and the same is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy in accordance with law. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
