1 CGHC010371002023 2026:CGHC:38412 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4804 of 2023 1 - N. R. Sainik S/o Late Shri C. L. Sainik Aged About 72 Years R/o Patel Mohall, Ward No. 40, Vivekananad Nagar, Torwa, Tashil And, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Electricity Ombudsman Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Building Compound, Irrigation Colony Shanti Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Electricity Consumer Complaint Redress Forum Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Executive Engineer (City) Division- East, C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Engineer (Zone) C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited, Torwa, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 31/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 & 4 to verify the actual reading of said meter and issue the revised electric bills to the petitioner, in the interest of Justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the application submitted by the petitioner seeking inspection and testing of the electricity meter in question has not yet been considered or decided by the concerned authorities. He further submits that, without considering the said application, a demand was raised against the petitioner, pursuant to which the petitioner has deposited the demanded amount, without prejudice to his rights and contentions. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner's application seeking inspection of the meter may kindly 3 be considered and decided by the concerned authorities in accordance with law. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, at the initial stage, the petitioner did not permit the respondent authorities to replace/change the electricity meter despite the request made by the authorities. He further submits that, subsequently, when the disputed meter was inspected by the concerned authorities, the same was found to be in proper working condition. In view thereof, the competent forum, after considering the material available on record, passed an order against the petitioner. The said order was thereafter challenged by the petitioner before the concerned Electricity Ombudsman; however, the challenge was also rejected and the order passed by the competent forum was affirmed. It is, therefore, submitted that concurrent findings have been recorded against the petitioner by the competent authorities and there is no apparent illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already deposited the demanded amount and, therefore, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the 4 parties, it is apparent from the record that the disputed meter was subsequently inspected by the concerned authorities and was found to be in proper working condition. The competent forum, upon consideration of the material available on record, has passed an order against the petitioner, which was thereafter assailed before the concerned Electricity Ombudsman. The Electricity Ombudsman has also considered the matter and declined to interfere with the order passed by the competent forum. Thus, concurrent findings have been recorded by the competent authorities against the petitioner with regard to the functioning and condition of the disputed meter. 6. In view of the aforesaid concurrent findings, this Court finds no sufficient ground or apparent illegality warranting interference with the impugned orders in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat