HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6222 of 2026 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging wilful defiance of the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the Writ Court in Writ-C No. 3019 of 2026, the operative portion whereof is quoted hereunder:— "1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 4.1.2026 issued by the Electricity Department. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3, submits that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005.4. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Executive Engineer under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005. In case such an application is filed within a period of one week from date, the authority concerned is directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter, pass an order in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the application. " 2. A compliance affidavit has been filed by the opposite party through Shri Chetan Chaterji, learned Advocate, and a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the applicant. 3. As per the order passed by the Writ Court, the challenge raised to the notice dated 04.01.2026 was not entertained and the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the applicant to approach the Executive Engineer Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kanhiya Lal Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mangal Dev Arya @ Mangal Dev Prasad Araya .....Applicant(s) Mahesh Chand Vishwakarma, Executive Engineer .....Opposite Party(s) under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005, who was required to decide the proceedings after affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. 4. 4. Shri Chetan Chaterji, learned counsel for the opposite party, has referred to Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005, according to which a consumer has a right to object to and dispute the bills and arrears and, for the said purpose, is required either to make payment under protest of an amount equal to the sum claimed from him or to pay the electricity charges calculated on the basis of the average of the electricity bills of the preceding six months. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the applicant has not made the pre-deposit as stipulated under the aforesaid clause. However, notwithstanding the same, the opposite party proceeded to consider and decide the objection and passed an order dated 24.09.2026, which is available at page 12 of the compliance affidavit. A revised bill has also been issued, which is available at page 13 of the said affidavit. It is, thus, submitted that there has been compliance with the order passed by the Writ Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that an erroneous interpretation of Clause 6.5 has been placed by the opposite party, which was not mandated by the Writ Court, and that an exorbitant bill has been issued. 7. In the opinion of the Court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, the merits of the dispute cannot be gone into. The Court cannot conduct a roving and fishing enquiry or record a finding with regard to the liability of the amount payable towards electricity charges, particularly when a statutory mechanism is available for adjudication of such disputes. Any final order passed in the proceedings is subject to challenge before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 8. This Court, therefore, finds that there has been substantial compliance with the order passed by the Writ Court. Accordingly, the present contempt application is consigned to the record, leaving it open to the applicant to question the orders passed and the assessment/revised bills in accordance with law. October 1, 2026 CAPL No. 6222 of 2026 2 Sumaira CAPL No. 6222 of 2026 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad