1 CGHC010266052022 2026:CGHC:38213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4006 of 2022 Pyush Thakur S/o Shri Prakash Lal Thakur Aged About 47 Years Partner - Glutinus Industries India Ltd. Shaktipara Urkura., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Executive Engineer (Operation And Maintenance) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd Division Urla Raipur, C.G. 2 - Assistant Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd Division Urla Raipur C.G. Division Zone Bhanpuri. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For the Petitioner :Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 25.08.2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “10. Reliefs Sought: 1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 2 2. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be set-a-side the impugned order dated 16.6.2022, as-well-as order dated 10.3.2022 passed by Electricity Forum Raipur which the respondent authority rejected case of the petitioner. 3. That the petitioner also pray to this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to the respondent authority to return the amount deposited by the petitioner against demand, made after two year which is violation of section 56(2) of the Act. 4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner in the present petition, are that the petitioner is running a partnership firm registered in the name and style of M/s. Glutinus Industries India Ltd., which is a small-scale industry having its registered office at Shaktipara, Urkura, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The petitioner had obtained an electricity connection in the name of the said firm as a regular connection. The respondent-authority installed the electricity connection bearing BP No.100624797 with a connected load of 25 HP and petitioner has been running his industry since 27.02.2017. The petitioner, vide application dated 16.03.2019, sought revision of the connected load to 65 HP, which remained applicable from 16.03.2019 to 15.05.2019. Thereafter, during the period from 16.05.2019 to 15.02.2021, the connected load was further revised from 65 HP to 99 HP. Finally, with effect from 16.02.2021, a connected load of 150 HP has been in 3 operation. The petitioner had submitted an application for enhancement of the connected load of his electricity connection from 25 HP to 150 HP. However, the tariff was not revised by the respondent-authority and the billing continued to be made at the old tariff of Rs.4.75/- instead of Rs.5.50/-. Subsequently, when the respondent-authority came to know of the said error in billing, it revised the bills and raised a demand of Rs.3,92,967/- against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the demand notice was issued against the petitioner in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Petitioner had already paid the entire amount of the demand as raised against him. However, since the demand was illegal, according to the petitioner, he raised an objection before the concerned Authority/Electricity Forum, but said objection was rejected vide order dated 10.03.2022 (Annexure P-2) and, thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Chhattisgarh, however, the Ombudsman also failed to consider the relevant aspects of the matter and submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and rejected/dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition, including the relevant documents and material available on record. 4 5. Perusal of the record reveals that the concerned Authorities have passed the reasoned orders fastening liability upon the petitioner and raising the demand in question. It appears that certain arrears/amounts, which were required to be included in the monthly electricity bills, had not been added therein earlier. When this fact came to the knowledge of the concerned Authority/Electricity Board, the said arrears were subsequently calculated and included in the demand raised against the petitioner. It is not the case that said arrears had already been added to the earlier bills or same were illegally added subsequently. Rather, the arrears/amounts which were required to be included in the bills had not been added earlier. Accordingly, after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, a demand towards outstanding arrears of Rs.3,65,354/- was raised against the petitioner. Since there was no illegality in raising the said demand, the same did not call for reconsideration. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the concerned Ombudsman. In its detailed order, the Ombudsman also considered all the relevant aspects of the matter as well as the law laid down by the concerned Bombay High Court and came to the conclusion that the appeal was devoid of merit. The Ombudsman also considered each and every aspect of the matter and found that the same had already been considered by the concerned Authority/Electricity Forum and, therefore, no further reconsideration of the matter was warranted. 5 6. When the two Authorities (the Electricity Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) have considered all aspects of the matter and have passed the reasoned orders and from perusal of said orders, no illegality or perversity appears to have been committed by either the concerned Electricity Forum or the Ombudsman, as such, the orders passed by the Electricity Forum & Electricity Ombudsman do not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as an Appellate Authority and examine the matter afresh. 8. For the foregoing observation/discussion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly hereby dismissed. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.