LLLLPPPPAAAA----1111555522228888----2222000022226666((((OOOO&&&&M M M M)))) 1111 111100005555 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1528-2026(O&M) Date of decision:-09.07.2026 Sushma Bhardwaj ...Appellant Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present :- Mr. Manav Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Midha, Advocate for respondent No.1 – DHBVNL. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL) CM-3734-LPA-2026 1. For the reasons given in the application, which is supported with an affidavit of appellant, same is allowed. 2. Delay of 37 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. LPA-1528-2026 3. This intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Clause X of Letters Patent, impugning judgment dated 13th March 2026 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA 2026.07.20 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh. LLLLPPPPAAAA----1111555522228888----2222000022226666((((OOOO&&&&M M M M)))) 2222 111100005555 ground of availability of an efficacious alternate statutory remedy. 4. Appellant had approached the writ Court, inter alia, seeking quashing of order dated 5th September 2025, Annexure P7, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Faridabad on a complaint filed under Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that besides assailing order dated 5th September 2025, Annexure P7, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Faridabad, Annexure P7, petitioner has also assailed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed between Dakshin Harana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVN) and Adel Divine Court Residents and Buyer Welfare Association dated 16th January 2022, Annexure P1. Counsel contends that the petitioner is neither a signatory to the MOU nor is a member of the Residents Welfare Association (RWA), therefore, she is not bound by the MOU. Counsel asserts that D.H.B.V.N. was bound to restore the electricity connection to the appellant's apartment without levying any charges payable by RWA under the MOU. It has been argued by him that alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Having heard counsel for the appellant, this court is of the view that there is no merit in his submission. BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA 2026.07.20 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh. LLLLPPPPAAAA----1111555522228888----2222000022226666((((OOOO&&&&M M M M)))) 3333 111100005555 7. The undisputed position is that the appellant has impugned order, Annexure P7, passed by DCRDC, whereby a complaint filed by the appellant has been accepted and D.H.B.V.N. has been directed to restore the electricity connection to petitioner's premises subject to the furnishing of requisite documents as well as the tentative infrastructure cost and pending electricity dues. Compensation for mental harassment as well as litigation expenses have also been awarded to the appellant. The remedy available to the petitioner is to file an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Petitioner cannot be permitted to bypass the alternate statutory remedy by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. In Pranav Ansal Versus State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, 2020 (4) PLR 529, this Court has held that as the statute framed to protect the consumers provides for filing of an appeal both on facts and law before a specially constituted forum for redressal of the grievances of aggrieved party. In such a situation, invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a person aggrieved against the orders of the Commission is not tenable. 8. Insofar as challenge to MOU is concerned, it may be noticed that petitioner is not a signatory to MOU, which has been signed between the members of RWA and DHBVN. Petitioner is also not a member of the RWA. He, therefore, cannot challenge the MOU to which she is neither a signatory nor a party. The challenge to the MOU in the BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA 2026.07.20 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh. LLLLPPPPAAAA----1111555522228888----2222000022226666((((OOOO&&&&M M M M)))) 4444 111100005555 writ petition is a clever attempt to enter the writ Court, which cannot be permitted. Primary challenge of the petitioner is to the award, Annexure P7, passed by the DCDRC. 9. As there exists an effective alternate statutory remedy, High Court will ordinarily not exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction. Learned Single Judge has secured the rights of the appellant by clarifying that the dismissal of the writ petition would not inhibit the appellant from availing any other alternate remedy in accordance with law. This court does not find any infirmity or error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. There is no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed leaving the appellant to take recourse to the remedy available to her in accordance with law. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA) 09.07.2026 JUDGE Brij Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA 2026.07.20 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.