Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s. J.P. Electrical Enterprises and Jai Prakash Rajbali Singh, filed three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging supplementary electricity bills issued by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL). The petitioners contended that the supplementary bills were incorrect, based on wrong meter readings, and that they were not given proper opportunity to contest the bills. They sought quashing of the bills and direction to the respondents to issue correct bills. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions, arguing that the petitions involved disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The respondents relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 728 and the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Sujyoti India Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur 2017 (4) Mh. L. J. 534. The Court, after hearing both sides, upheld the preliminary objection. It held that the correctness of the supplementary bills involved disputed questions of fact regarding meter readings and actual consumption, which cannot be resolved in writ proceedings. The Court noted that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit to adjudicate these factual disputes. Accordingly, the Court dismissed all three writ petitions as not maintainable, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the civil court for appropriate relief. The Court also directed that if the petitioners file a civil suit, the period during which they were prosecuting the writ petitions shall be considered for exclusion of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Disputed Questions of Fact - Petitioners challenged supplementary electricity bills issued by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. on the ground that they were incorrect and based on wrong readings. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitions involved disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The Court held that where there are disputed questions of fact, the remedy under Article 226 is not available and the petitioners must approach the civil court. (Paras 3-6) B) Electricity Law - Billing Dispute - Supplementary Bill - Electricity Supply Act, 2003 - Section 56 - The petitioners disputed the supplementary bills for electricity consumption, alleging that the bills were based on incorrect meter readings and that the respondents had not provided proper opportunity. The Court noted that the correctness of the bills involved factual disputes regarding meter readings and consumption, which cannot be resolved in writ proceedings. (Paras 4-5) C) Civil Procedure - Alternative Remedy - Availability of Civil Suit - The Court observed that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit to adjudicate the disputed questions of fact. The existence of an alternative efficacious remedy is a ground for refusing to exercise writ jurisdiction. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitions challenging supplementary electricity bills are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there are disputed questions of fact regarding the correctness of the bills.
Final Decision
All three writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the civil court for appropriate relief. If a civil suit is filed, the period during which the petitioners were prosecuting the writ petitions shall be considered for exclusion of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked where disputed questions of fact exist
- Electricity billing disputes involving factual controversies are not amenable to writ jurisdiction
- Alternative remedy of civil suit is available for resolution of disputed facts
