The court emphasized the necessity for proper communication of revised bills by the Electricity Board and the implications of consumer disputes on revenue recovery.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11484 of 2023 was a consumer of electricity, who was issued a bill for Rs. 2,80,273/- (Rupees two lakh eighty thousand two hundred and seventy three only) during 2002. Aggrieved by the said bill, the petitioner approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta, which passed the following order on 18.01.2002:-

“In the result, the above petition is disposed of in the following terms:

Ext.P1 demand notice for Rs. 2,80,273/- is hereby set aside. The opposite parties are directed to issue a revised current charge bill for the arrears of the current charges of the petitioner's industrial unit in accordance with law. It is made clear that this order will not affect the right of the opposite parties for initiating Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the petitioner for realization of the arrears of current charges as per revised current charge bill from the petitioner as per rules.”

2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, thereafter, no revised bill was issued to him and that it was only on 26.12.2019 that Ext.P2 demand was made for Rs. 6,86,006/-. He also contends that the Board had unsuccessfully challenged Ext.P1 in Appeal No. 658/002 before the State Commission. Later, Ext.P4 revenue recovery proceedings were initiated for an amount of Rs.8,82,271/-, which is challenged in this writ petition.

3. In view of the above dispute, this Court passed the following order on 29^th November, 2025:-

There will be a direction to the Electricity Board to file an affidavit as to the steps taken after the order passed in O.P.No.328/2001 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta, which was confirmed in Appeal No.658/2002 by the State Commission. The affidavit shall specify whether the writ petitioner was heard before quantifying the amount and also to produce the proof of having communicated the revised bill, if any, to the petitioner. The affidavit shall be filed within three weeks from today. The coercive steps against the petitioner will stand deferred for a period of one month.

4. An affidavit has been filed by the Board pursuant to the above directions, which reads as follows:-

“3. It is respectfully submitted that, the petitioner had approached the consumer disputes redressal forum Pathanamthitta by filing OP No. 328/2001 and the CDRF vide orders dated 18.01.2002 set aside the invoice in question and relegated the matter to the respondents for fresh calculation. Accordingly the electricity charges were recalculated and it was found that the electricity charge remains the same and it was communicated to the petitioner. Consequently the petitioner approached the executive engineer Pathanamthitta on 18.09.2002 with the submission stating that the payment due from him is only Rs.2,80,273/- and no other arrears were due from him. True copy of the letter dated 18.09.2002 sent by the petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R5(a).

4. It is submitted that, the copy of communication concluding the recalculation of the bill issued to the petitioner has been irrecoverably lost from the respondent assistant engineers office along with other documents, when the office got flooded in the year 2018 and could not be salvaged. However, the Exhibit R5(a) letter addressed to the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division Pathanamthitta is proof of the fact that the communication had been through as he himself in the latter admits that the demand and revenue recovery after bill for Rs.2,80,703/- set aside by CDRF pathanamthitta vide orders of OP No. 328/2001 is to be quashed. In the very same letter he goes on to admit that he is bound to pay Rs.2,80,703/-

and nothing more.

5. It is su