Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 13821
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J
M/S BALAJI AND SONS – Appellant
Versus
CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED – Respondent
WPC No. 863 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amit Soni
For the Respondents: Mayank Chandrakar, Shivang Dubey
A writ petition is not maintainable when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy, such as approaching the Ombudsman under Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is available to the aggrieved party.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order passed by the Electricity Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum and requesting the adjustment of excess electricity bills. The dispute arose from the calculation of tariffs following the enhancement of HP load from 150 HP to 200 HP, where the petitioner contended that the tariff should be calculated as per the LT Line. The primary issue was whether the writ petition was maintainable given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy. The court observed that under Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003, an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to raise grievances before the Ombudsman. This writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy before the Ombudsman, with a direction that the application be decided preferably within 30 days.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to electricity tariff calculation and request for bill adjustment following load enhancement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. objection to maintainability based on the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. (Para 4) |
| 3. non-maintainability of writ petition due to the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under the electricity act. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
Order on Board
1. Heard.
2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
“1. That, to issue an appropriate writ to quash the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Electricity Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Bilaspur.
2. That, to issue an appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to correctly interpret the CSERC orders dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P/4) and 18.09.2025 (Annexure P/5) in their true letter and spirit
3. That, to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondent authorities to adjust the excess amount paid by the petitioner from January 2025 to June 2025 against their future electricity bills.
4. That, any other further order(s) as deemed fit and necessary by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the decision taken by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (henceforth referred to as “the Commission”) regarding the tariff on enhancement of HP load from 150 HP to 200 HP, and despite the Commission’s direction to calculate the tariff as per the LT Line, the respondents have failed to adjust the excess amount paid by the petitioner. Hence, learned counsel prays that the instant petition may be admitted for hearing.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 submits that an efficacious alternate statutory remedy is available to the petitioner to raise its grievance before the Ombudsman under Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2003”), therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.
5. Having considered that an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner to raise its grievance before the Ombudsman under Section 42 (6) of the Act of 2003, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, hence the same is disposed of. However, liberty is left with the petitioner to avail aforesaid statutory remedy.
6. It is further observed that, in the event the petitioner files an application before the Ombudsman, the same shall be considered and decided as early as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the application.
7. With aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of
8. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
