High Court of Gujarat Quashes Electricity Ombudsman Orders in Seasonal Consumer Billing Dispute — Demand Charges Recovery Based on Contract Demand Upheld. The court held that the Ombudsman's direction to revise bills from March 2019 and refund amounts was contrary to Clause 14.11 of the Tariff and the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and related matters) Regulations, 2005, and that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to review its own order.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 36
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Executive Engineer (O&M) of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited, a distribution licensee, challenged two orders passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. The first order dated 12.4.2022 in Case No.82 of 2021 directed the petitioner to revise energy bills of respondent No.1, M/s Patel Cotton Industries, from March 2019 onwards and refund any additional amount collected. The second order dated 13.7.2022 was a review order passed by the same Ombudsman in the same case. Respondent No.1 is a high tension (HT) seasonal consumer under HTP-I tariff with consumer no.17516 and contract demand of 1000 KVA. The consumer had approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum complaining that its billing was done as per tariff order up to February 2019 recovering demand charges based on actual demand utilized during the seasonal period, but from March 2019 the petitioner started billing demand charges based on contract demand. The Ombudsman allowed the consumer's complaint and directed revision of bills. The petitioner contended that as per Clause 14.11 of the Tariff, seasonal consumers are required to pay demand charges on the basis of contract demand, not actual demand. The court examined the tariff provisions and found that the Ombudsman's direction was contrary to the tariff. Additionally, the Ombudsman had no power to review its own order under the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and related matters) Regulations, 2005. The court allowed the petition, quashed both orders of the Ombudsman, and held that the petitioner was entitled to recover demand charges based on contract demand from March 2019 onwards.

Headnote

A) Electricity Law - Seasonal Consumer Tariff - Demand Charges Recovery - Clause 14.11 of Tariff - Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and related matters) Regulations, 2005 - The dispute pertained to billing of demand charges for a seasonal HT consumer under HTP-I tariff. The consumer contended that demand charges should be recovered based on actual demand utilized during the seasonal period, while the licensee billed based on contract demand. The court held that as per the tariff provisions, demand charges for seasonal consumers are to be recovered on the basis of contract demand, not actual demand, and the Ombudsman's direction to revise bills was erroneous. (Paras 4-6)

B) Electricity Law - Electricity Ombudsman - Review of Own Order - Jurisdiction - The Electricity Ombudsman passed an order on 12.4.2022 and subsequently passed a review order on 13.7.2022 in the same case. The court held that the Ombudsman has no power to review its own order under the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and related matters) Regulations, 2005, and the review order was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. (Paras 5-6)

C) Electricity Law - Consumer Grievance Redressal - Billing Dispute - The consumer had approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and then the Ombudsman. The court found that the Ombudsman's direction to revise bills from March 2019 and refund amounts was contrary to the tariff provisions and the Regulations. The court quashed both the original order and the review order passed by the Ombudsman. (Paras 4-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Electricity Ombudsman could direct revision of energy bills for a seasonal consumer from March 2019 onwards and order refund of additional amounts collected, and whether the Ombudsman could review its own order without statutory authority.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 12.4.2022 and the review order dated 13.7.2022 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad in Case No.82 of 2021. Rule made absolute.

Law Points

  • Seasonal consumer tariff
  • demand charges recovery
  • contract demand vs actual demand
  • Electricity Ombudsman jurisdiction
  • review of own order
  • Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and related matters) Regulations
  • 2005
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 236

R/Special Civil Application No. 5700 of 2023

2026-03-27

Hemant M. Prachchhak

Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya for petitioner, Mr. Param V. Shah for respondent No.1

Executive Engineer (O and M), Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited

M/s Patel Cotton Industries & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of the Electricity Ombudsman directing revision of energy bills and refund.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner (distribution licensee) sought quashing of Ombudsman's orders dated 12.4.2022 and 13.7.2022 and stay of their implementation.

Filing Reason

The Ombudsman directed revision of energy bills from March 2019 and refund of additional amounts, which the petitioner contended was contrary to tariff provisions.

Previous Decisions

Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum had earlier dealt with the complaint; Ombudsman passed order on 12.4.2022 and review order on 13.7.2022.

Issues

Whether the Electricity Ombudsman could direct revision of energy bills for a seasonal consumer from March 2019 onwards and order refund of additional amounts collected? Whether the Electricity Ombudsman could review its own order without statutory authority?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that as per Clause 14.11 of Tariff, seasonal consumers are liable to pay demand charges on contract demand, not actual demand, and the Ombudsman's direction was erroneous. Petitioner argued that the Ombudsman had no power to review its own order under the Regulations. Respondent No.1 contended that billing should be based on actual demand utilized during seasonal period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that as per the tariff provisions, demand charges for seasonal consumers are to be recovered on the basis of contract demand, not actual demand. The Electricity Ombudsman has no power to review its own order under the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and related matters) Regulations, 2005. Therefore, the Ombudsman's orders directing revision of bills and refund were without jurisdiction and contrary to law.

Judgment Excerpts

The respondent No.1 is HT consumer of petitioner vide consumer no.17516 and availed benefits of seasonal consumer under HTP-I tariff having contract demand of 1000 KVA. The Ombudsman has no power to review its own order under the Regulations. The demand charges for seasonal consumers are to be recovered on the basis of contract demand, not actual demand.

Procedural History

The respondent No.1 (consumer) filed a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum regarding billing of demand charges. The Forum decided the matter. Thereafter, the consumer approached the Electricity Ombudsman, who passed an order on 12.4.2022 directing revision of bills from March 2019 and refund. The Ombudsman then passed a review order on 13.7.2022 in the same case. The petitioner (licensee) challenged both orders before the High Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 5700 of 2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
  • Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and related matters) Regulations, 2005:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Cancellation of Marriage Certificate by Mandamus — No Statutory Duty on Registrar to Cancel Certificate After Divorce Decree. The court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in the...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Gujarat Quashes Electricity Ombudsman Orders in Seasonal Consumer Billing Dispute — Demand Charges Recovery Based on Contract Demand Upheld. The court held that the Ombudsman's direction to revise bills from March 2019 and refund amou...