1 CGHC010275872022 2026:CGHC:35785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3783 of 2022 Order Reserved on: 29.7.2026 Order Delivered on: 13.8.2026 • Rajendra Trivedi Shri Shivprakash Trivedi, Aged About 46 Years Working As Plant Manager At Shri Tulasi Phosphate Limited, Industrial Area, Village Birkoni, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Superintendent Engineer (Distribution / Maintenance Circle Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Collectorate Office Road, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2. Executive Engineer, (Distribution/maintenance) Circle, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Collectorate Office Road, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Adarsh Rajput, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “1. Hon'ble Court may be kind and gracious enough to call for the records of the case from the respondents. 2 Hon'ble Court may be kind be pleased to set aside order dated 21.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) and also the order dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P/2) by issuance of appropriate writ/writs. 3. Hon'ble Court may be kind be pleased to direct the respondents to prepare fresh electricity bill after availing the services of the experts to ascertain the cause of the exorbitant consumption of electricity in the month of August & September 2021 by issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions. 4. Hon'ble Court may be kind be pleased to direct the respondents to recalculate the electricity bill for month of August and September 2021 as average of bill and receive the same from the Petitioner by issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions. 5. Any other relief/relief's which Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is the Plant Manager of M/s Tulsi Phosphate Limited, a company engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers and having its manufacturing unit at the 3 address mentioned in the cause title. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are officers of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL), a Government of Chhattisgarh undertaking engaged in the distribution of electricity and, therefore, are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner-company has been availing an electricity connection from CSPDCL for its fertilizer plant and had been regularly receiving electricity supply. The plant remained operational during certain periods and remained closed during others, with electricity consumption and billing during the closure periods consistently reflecting only nominal or average charges. However, although the plant remained closed during the months of August and September, 2021, the respondents raised highly excessive electricity bills by recording consumption of 87,385.50 units for August, 2021 amounting to Rs.6,52,560.21 and 23,811 units for September, 2021 amounting to Rs.2,22,295.42, which was wholly inconsistent with the previous pattern of consumption when the plant remained non-operational. The petitioner immediately objected to the abnormal meter readings and the inflated bills, contending that the same were arbitrary and erroneous. The petitioner also requested the respondents to conduct testing of the electricity meter and to furnish the meter testing report as well as the detailed daily consumption data for the relevant months. Although the meter was tested, the testing report was never supplied to the petitioner, nor were the 4 requested details of electricity consumption furnished. On the contrary, the bill for October, 2021 was again raised on an average basis, which itself demonstrated the arbitrary manner in which the respondents had assessed the electricity consumption. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Raipur, by filing a complaint challenging the excessive billing. The respondents filed their reply contending that the meter was functioning properly and that the details of daily electricity consumption had been dispatched to the petitioner by post. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, by order dated 29.03.2022, dismissed the complaint and upheld the meter readings and the impugned bills. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Raipur; however, the appeal was also dismissed by order dated 21.07.2022. The petitioner submits that the arbitrary computation of electricity consumption and the consequential bills, as well as the orders dated 29.03.2022 and 21.07.2022 affirming the same, are illegal, arbitrary, unsupported by the material on record, and liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman are wholly arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the petitioner's industrial unit remained completely non-operational during the months of 5 August and September, 2021, yet the respondents recorded extraordinarily high electricity consumption and raised exorbitant bills, whereas during earlier periods of closure no such abnormal consumption had ever been recorded. Such abnormal and unexplained consumption, during a period when the plant was admittedly closed, itself created serious doubt regarding the correctness of the meter readings and warranted a thorough technical investigation before fastening liability upon the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that, despite specifically requesting the respondents to furnish the meter testing report and the detailed electricity consumption data for the disputed period, the same were never supplied, thereby depriving the petitioner of an effective opportunity to dispute the alleged consumption and violating the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum proceeded merely on assumptions and conjectures by observing that the capacitor bank might have remained operational, without any independent technical report, expert opinion, or scientific analysis to substantiate such finding. The Electricity Ombudsman also failed to undertake an independent examination of the meter or the abnormal consumption pattern and mechanically affirmed the stand of the respondents without considering whether the excessive consumption was technically possible or whether the petitioner had been supplied the relevant documents. Learned counsel would also submit that the billing pattern itself 6 demonstrates arbitrariness, as while exorbitant consumption was shown for August and September, 2021, the bill for October, 2021 was raised on an average basis, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the correctness and reliability of the disputed readings. It is argued that once the petitioner specifically disputed the meter readings and established that the plant remained closed during the relevant period, the burden shifted upon the respondents to prove, by cogent technical evidence, that the recorded consumption was genuine. In the absence of any such evidence, the findings recorded by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman are based on conjectures, unsupported by the material on record, and are therefore liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner-firm obtained a 150 KVA, 33 KV High Tension industrial electricity connection after executing an agreement with the respondents and that electricity supply was provided till 24.11.2021. It is submitted that the bills for the months of August and September, 2021 were generated strictly in accordance with the applicable tariff orders and statutory regulations, without any arbitrariness. Upon the petitioner's request, the respondents arranged testing of the meter through the competent authority after deposit of the prescribed charges, and the meter testing report confirmed that the meter was functioning properly. It is further submitted that the respondents supplied the petitioner with 7 the detailed electricity consumption data and also explained the billing calculations in a meeting held before the Chief Engineer, where, on the petitioner's request, permission was granted to clear the outstanding dues in four instalments. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioner's allegation regarding non- supply of the meter testing report and consumption details is factually incorrect. Referring to the findings of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, it is submitted that the abnormal consumption was on account of the capacitor bank remaining operational, resulting in export of reactive energy to the CSPDCL grid, and the bills were rightly prepared on the basis of Apparent Power (KVAH) recorded by the meter, as prescribed under the applicable tariff order. It is further submitted that both the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman, after considering the technical reports and the material placed on record, concurrently upheld the correctness of the meter readings and the impugned bills. Therefore, as the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with law and the concurrent findings suffer from no legal infirmity, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner was operating a fertilizer manufacturing unit and had obtained a High Tension electricity connection from the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL). Although the 8 manufacturing unit remained closed during the period from December, 2017 to September, 2021, the material placed on record clearly establishes that the capacitor bank installed in the petitioner's premises continued to remain operational. Consequently, electrical energy continued to be consumed by the said apparatus despite the closure of the manufacturing unit. Since the capacitor bank remained operational due to the petitioner's own arrangement and formed part of the electrical system installed within the petitioner's premises, the electricity consumed thereby cannot be attributed to any fault or negligence on the part of CSPDCL. The respondents have also demonstrated that throughout the month of August, 2021, the Apparent Power (KVAH) recorded in the meter was 87,385 KVAH and that, after the capacitive component (capacitor bank) was switched off on 18.09.2021, the Apparent Power recorded during September, 2021 reduced to 23,811 KVAH. This significant reduction in consumption after the capacitor bank was switched off substantiates the respondents' stand that the higher consumption recorded during the disputed period was attributable to the operation of the capacitor bank. Accordingly, the electricity bills raised for the months of August and September, 2021, amounting to Rs.6,52,560.50 and Rs.2,22,295/-, respectively, having been prepared on the basis of the Apparent Power (KVAH) actually recorded in the meter and in accordance with the applicable tariff regulations, are found to be legal, valid, and payable by the 9 petitioner. Consequently, the demand raised by the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal, or without authority of law. 6. The aforesaid factual and technical aspects have been duly examined and correctly appreciated by the Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Raipur, while passing the order dated 29.03.2022, which has thereafter been affirmed by the Electricity Ombudsman by order dated 21.07.2022. Both the authorities have recorded concurrent findings on the basis of the technical material available on record, and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any patent illegality, perversity, procedural irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders. It is well settled that, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate findings of fact unless such findings are shown to be perverse or wholly unsustainable in law. No such ground has been made out in the present case warranting interference. 7. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat