1 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 petitioner has been rejected, affirming the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by the Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur in Case No. 19/Raipur/2016 (Annexure-P/3). By the aforesaid orders, VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.23 17:55:19 +0530 2 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 3 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, which forms the very foundation of the additional demand, was never supplied to the petitioner despite specific request. The impugned demand has thus been raised behind the back of the petitioner, without affording any opportunity to verify the correctness of the inspection findings or the methodology of calculation. Such action is in clear violation of the audi alteram partem rule and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. ******* Learned counsel submits that the meter installed in the 4 petitioner’s premises is an Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) meter, whereby consumption details, voltage, power factor, etc. are directly recorded at the AMR Centre of the respondent department. The Junior Engineer of the department has been regularly recording the monthly consumption data and issuing monthly electricity bills accordingly. In such circumstances, if there was any defect in Phase ‘Y’ and ‘B’, the same ought to have been reflected in the departmental records much earlier. The respondent cannot take advantage of its own lapse in monitoring the AMR data and saddle the petitioner with a huge retrospective liability for several months. ******* It is submitted that the respondent has arbitrarily determined the period from 12.07.2015 to 09.01.2016 as the “defective period” without assigning any cogent reason as to how and on what basis the starting date of defect was arrived at. There is no finding recorded as to the exact month from which the meter became defective. The applicable procedure requires the authority to first determine, on objective material, the period during which the meter remained defective. In absence of such determination, the assessment itself becomes vitiated. Without prejudice, it is submitted that even if the meter is assumed to be defective, the settled principle for assessment is to determine consumption on the basis of average consumption prior to the defect and after replacement of the meter. ******* The petitioner has specifically demonstrated that, (a) from January 2015 to June 2015, the average consumption was approximately 6,800 units per month, (b) From July 2015 to December 2015, the average consumption was approximately 11,829 units per 5 month, and (c) After replacement of the meter (January 2016 to March 2016), the average consumption was approximately 4,605 units per month. 4. There is thus a substantial variation in consumption before, during and after the alleged defective period. The respondent has failed to undertake a comparative analysis of consumption pattern and has instead mechanically relied upon MRI data to raise an inflated demand. The authorities below have also failed to consider that the production activity of the petitioner’s unit remained consistent and there was no abnormal increase warranting such excessive reassessment. It is further submitted that the relevant clause governing assessment in case of defective meters (as referred to by the petitioner) provides multiple modes for determining energy consumption during the defective period. However, no reasons have been assigned by the respondent as to why a particular method was adopted, nor have alternative modes been considered. The impugned orders are completely silent on this aspect and do not reflect any independent application of mind to the objections raised by the petitioner. ******* The order passed by the Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman are cryptic and non- speaking. The detailed objections raised by the petitioner regarding, Non-supply of MRI report, Absence of opportunity, Improper calculation methodology, Failure to determine actual defective period, and Variation in consumption pattern, have not been dealt with in a reasoned manner. The Ombudsman has merely reproduced the stand 6 of the department and affirmed the demand without independent scrutiny. It is well settled that quasi-judicial authorities are required to pass reasoned and speaking orders reflecting due consideration of the contentions raised. The impugned orders fail to satisfy this fundamental requirement. 5. Learned counsel submits that the meter was installed and maintained by the respondent department. If at all there was any defect in recording current in certain phases, the same was within the exclusive control and domain of the respondent. The petitioner cannot be penalized for an alleged technical defect in the meter supplied and monitored by the department. In absence of any allegation of tampering or malpractice, fastening a heavy financial liability upon the petitioner is wholly unjust and inequitable. 6. The additional demand of Rs.2,41,705/- has serious civil consequences for the petitioner’s industrial unit. Such demand, raised without adherence to statutory procedure and without proper determination of actual consumption, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondent is disproportionate and lacks a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 7. Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel for the respondent would submits that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The petitioner seeks to re-agitate pure questions of fact which have already been examined and decided concurrently by two statutory authorities, namely the 7 Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman. The scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to cases of jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any such infirmity. The impugned orders are reasoned, based on material on record, and passed within jurisdiction. Hence, no interference is warranted. ******* It is submitted that both the Forum and the Ombudsman, after detailed examination of the spot inspection report, MRI report, and consumption data, have categorically held that, the inspection was conducted in accordance with procedure, the petitioner’s representative was present at the time of inspection, the MRI report was supplied to the petitioner, the assessment was made as per Rule 9.16(B) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidyut Pradaya Sahinta, 2011. These findings are findings of fact based on evidence and cannot be re-appreciated in writ jurisdiction as if this Hon’ble Court is sitting in appeal. ******* The principal ground urged by the petitioner is that the inspection was conducted behind his back and that the MRI report was not supplied to him. This contention is factually incorrect and stands conclusively disproved. It is submitted that, the spot inspection was conducted in the presence of the petitioner’s representative, Shri Girish Verma. the said representative signed the spot inspection report (Panchnama), copy of the AMR/LTCT meter replacement report was handed over to the petitioner, copy of the MRI report was supplied to the petitioner, and acknowledgment dated 8 14.01.2016 evidencing receipt is on record. These documents were placed before the Forum as well as the Ombudsman and were duly considered. The petitioner never effectively challenged the authenticity of these documents before the statutory authorities. Therefore, the plea of violation of natural justice is an afterthought and liable to be rejected. ******* During inspection dated 09.01.2016, it was found that current in Phase ‘Y’ and ‘B’ was showing ‘Zero’. Consequently, energy consumption for two phases was not being recorded. This was not a mere technical discrepancy but a material defect affecting recording of actual consumption. Once such defect was detected through inspection and corroborated by MRI data, the respondent was statutorily bound to reassess consumption for the period during which the meter remained defective. ******* Learned counsel submits that the reassessment has been made strictly in accordance with Rule 9.16(B) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidyut Pradaya Sahinta, 2011, which governs assessment in cases of defective meters. The Ombudsman has specifically recorded that the procedure adopted by the respondent is in consonance with the said Rule. The petitioner has not demonstrated any specific deviation from the statutory provision. A bald allegation that “average consumption ought to have been considered” does not invalidate an assessment carried out in accordance with the prescribed rule. ******* The petitioner has attempted to rely upon comparative monthly averages before and after the defective period to contend that the 9 demand is excessive. This submission is misconceived. It is submitted that, the petitioner is running an industrial unit, electricity consumption in industrial units is inherently demand-driven, month-to-month and year-to-year fluctuation in consumption is normal and depends upon production volume, market demand, and operational hours. A detailed consumption chart (Annexure R/4) was produced before the Ombudsman demonstrating fluctuation in consumption over different periods. Thus, reliance on selected averages to challenge the reassessment is legally untenable. ******* The reassessment was not arbitrary. It was based on, spot inspection findings, MRI data analysis, applicable statutory rule and recorded consumption pattern. The petitioner was afforded opportunity before raising the final bill. There is no breach of statutory procedure or denial of opportunity. Therefore, the allegation of arbitrariness under Article 14 is wholly unfounded. ******* The present writ petition is essentially an attempt to convert writ jurisdiction into an appellate forum for re-evaluation of technical findings and factual appreciation already undertaken by specialized authorities. It is settled law that writ courts do not interfere with concurrent factual findings unless they are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or passed without jurisdiction. None of these contingencies arise in the present case. ******* The petitioner has vaguely referred to violation of fundamental rights. It is submitted that assessment of electricity charges in accordance with statutory provisions does not infringe any 10 fundamental right. The action is regulatory and contractual in nature, arising out of supply of electricity under statutory framework. It is further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court without disclosing the full factual matrix and after having failed before two statutory forums. The writ petition is thus misconceived and an abuse of the process of law. ******* In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition being devoid of merit, uphold the orders dated 09.05.2016 passed by the Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur and 30.08.2016 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Raipur and award costs in favour of the respondent, as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed an application for bringing additional facts on record, in compliance with the direction issued by this Hon’ble Court requiring the respondent to clarify the factual matrix supported by relevant documents as well as the precise mode of calculation of the impugned additional bill. He submits that on 08.01.2016, the electricity connection of the petitioner’s industrial unit, M/s Maruti Granites, was inspected by the Executive Engineer (Vigilance), Office of the Additional Chief Engineer, Raipur. During inspection, it was detected that, zero (0) load current was being displayed in Y phase; and zero (0) load current was being displayed in B phase. In view of this anomaly, the MRI (Meter Reading Instrument) analysis of the AMR meter was conducted to ascertain the period and extent of current missing. 11 ******* On 09.01.2016, AMR meter No. SEMS CSP06896 installed at the petitioner’s premises (BP No. 1001554681) was examined, and the following findings emerged from the Tamper Summary Report and Current Missing Status Report: (i) B Phase Current was found missing for 74 days, commencing from 12.07.2015. Accordingly, additional billing for B phase was computed for the period from 12.07.2015 to 09.01.2016. (ii) Y Phase Current was found missing for 25 days, commencing from 16.07.2015. Accordingly, additional billing for Y phase was computed for the period from 16.07.2015 to 09.01.2016. ******* These findings are based on electronically recorded tamper and current-missing data, and not on conjecture or estimation. ******* It is further submitted that photocopies of the MRI report and the billing statement were made available to the petitioner on 24.02.2016. There has been no reluctance or concealment on the part of the respondent in furnishing relevant material. The allegation of non- supply of documents is therefore factually incorrect. ******* In compliance with the direction of this Hon’ble Court, the respondent has placed on record the precise method of calculation adopted. The reassessment was made phase-wise, based on actual readings reflected in the MRI data. (a) B Phase Calculation: Reading on 12.07.2015 – 466935 units Reading on 09.01.2016 – 490774 units Consumption – 23,839 units 12 Additional proportionate consumption for 74 days – 886 units Total B Phase Units – 24,725 units (b) Y Phase Calculation: Reading on 16.07.2015 – 467477 units Reading on 09.01.2016 – 490774 units Consumption – 23,297 units Additional proportionate consumption for 25 days – 256 units Total Y Phase Units – 23,553 units Total Units (B + Y) = 48,278 units ******* Thereafter, statutory components were applied as, Energy Charges @ Rs. 4.40 per unit, Electricity Duty, Cess and VCA (Variable Cost Adjustment), resulting in total amount of Rs. 2,41,705.06. The calculation is arithmetical, traceable to meter data, and in conformity with Rule 9.16(B) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidyut Pradaya Sahinta, 2011. ****** It is submitted that the present application does not alter the nature of defence nor seek to introduce any new ground. The statutory authorities have already upheld the assessment. The present material only provides detailed computation to assist this Hon’ble Court in appreciating the correctness of the assessment. ****** The petitioner suffers no prejudice by placing this material on record. On the contrary, the application enhances transparency by disclosing the exact mathematical basis of the demand. In writ proceedings, especially where technical billing disputes are involved, production of complete records aids proper adjudication. 13 ******* In light of, the MRI-confirmed current missing data, phase-wise scientific computation, supply of documents to the petitioner, concurrent findings of Forum and Ombudsman, the writ petition lacks merit and deserves dismissal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings, documents placed on record, including the material brought by way of I.A. No. 2 of 2025. 10. The core issue which arises for consideration is not merely the arithmetical correctness of the reassessment, but whether the procedure adopted for determining the period of defect and consequent computation of additional liability satisfies the requirement of fairness, transparency and adherence to the governing statutory provisions. The record indicates that the additional demand has been raised on the basis of MRI data reflecting “current missing” in B Phase and Y Phase for specified periods. However, the manner in which the starting point of the defective period has been fixed, the methodology adopted for proportionate computation, and the application of Rule 9.16(B) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidyut Pradaya Sahinta, 2011 have not been preceded by a structured determination after affording the petitioner a meaningful opportunity to contest the technical data and the basis of calculation. 11. Though the respondent asserts that copies of the MRI report and billing statement were supplied, the material on record does not reflect that any independent adjudicatory exercise was undertaken after furnishing the detailed computation and inviting objections specifically 14 on the phase-wise reassessment. The determination of liability in cases of alleged defective meter or current-missing condition must be preceded by clear identification of the exact period of defect, objective application of the prescribed formula, and consideration of the consumer’s explanation with regard to consumption pattern and production cycle. In absence of a demonstrable, reasoned consideration addressing these aspects, the impugned assessment cannot be said to have attained finality in accordance with law. 12. This Court is not inclined to enter into the technical merits of the phase-wise calculation in exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, since civil consequences ensue from the impugned demand and the procedure adopted does not reflect a complete and reasoned reassessment after affording an effective opportunity of hearing, interference to a limited extent is warranted. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein. The impugned orders dated 09.05.2016 passed by the Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur and dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Raipur, as well as the consequential additional demand raised against the petitioner, are set aside. 14. The matter is remitted to the concerned competent authority/respondent to reconsider/reassess the petitioner’s case afresh, strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and the relevant Supply Code. The authority shall clearly determine the precise period during which the meter/phase remained defective or 15 current-missing, apply the appropriate statutory formula/mode of assessment as prescribed, furnish to the petitioner complete phase- wise data and calculation details; and afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to submit objections along with supporting material. After such exercise, a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within a reasonable period, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims and all contentions are left open to be urged before the competent authority. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved