1 2026:CGHC:10964 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 863 of 2026 1 - M/s Balaji And Sons Through Its Partner Vijay Agrawal, S/o Shri R.S. Agrawal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Gram- Kirari, Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Through Its Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Daganiya, Raipur C.G. 2 - Superintending Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Daganiya, Raipur C.G. 3 - Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Raipur Through Its Chairman, Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur C.G. 4 - Assistant Engineer, (D), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Akaltara, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate For Respondents No.1, 2 & 4 For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 03/03/2026 1. Heard. RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.03.03 17:29:20 +0530 2 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 3 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). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar