2025:CGHC:61975 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2835 of 2016 Vinod Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years, Proprietor M/s Maruti Granites, Kendri Uparwara Road, Village Uparwara, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Executive Engineer (Maintenance) Division Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Rajim, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh … Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal

Order on Board

15/12/2025

1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Raipur in Case No. 03/2016 (Annexure-P/1), whereby the representation preferred by the VED petitioner has been rejected, affirming the order dated 09.05.2016 PRAKASH DEWANGAN passed by the Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.23 in Case No. 19/Raipur/2016 (Annexure-P/3). By the aforesaid orders, the additional electricity demand raised against the petitioner vide bill dated 18.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.2,41,705/-, on the basis of inspection report and MRI data alleging zero current recording in Phase ‘Y’ and ‘B’ of the meter for the period from 12.07.2015 to 09.01.2016, has been upheld. The petitioner contends that the impugned demand is arbitrary, contrary to the prescribed procedure for assessment of consumption in case of alleged defective meter, and violative of principles of natural justice, as neither proper opportunity was afforded nor the calculation has been made on the basis of average consumption prior to and subsequent to replacement of the meter.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for the following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure-P/1) passed by Electricity Ombudsman Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.03/2016 and consequently, the order dated 09.05.2016 (Annexure-P/3) passed by Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.19/Raipur/2016 and allow the representation as filed by the petitioner;

10.2 That, any other relief, including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Hon'ble Court be granted.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Raipur, affirming the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by the Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Both the authorities have failed to appreciate the factual matrix as well as the applicable statutory procedure governing assessment in cases of alleged defective meters, and have mechanically upheld the additional demand of Rs.2,41,705/- raised against the petitioner.

******* At the outset, it is submitted that there is no allegation whatsoever of theft of electricity or tampering with the meter against the petitioner. The entire case of the respondent is founded merely on the ground that during inspection dated 09.01.2016, the current in Phase ‘Y’ and ‘B’ was shown as ‘Zero’. Even assuming such recording, the case would at best fall within the category of a “defective meter” and not unauthorized use or theft. Therefore, the assessment ought to have been made strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure applicable to defective meters, and not by adopting an arbitrary formula based upon MRI data.

******* It is further submitted that the inspection allegedly conducted by the Executive Engineer (Vigilance) was carried out without prior notice to the petitioner and in his absence. No signature of the petitioner or his representative was obtained on the spot inspection report. The MRI report, whi