Allahabad High Court’s Decision on Electricity Billing Dispute
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has offered relief to a food manufacturing company embroiled in a dispute over an electricity bill amounting to ₹54 lakh, which was purportedly the result of a billing error by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). The case, titled Om Food Manufacturing Center v. State of UP & Ors, was decided by a bench comprising Justices Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh.
Case Background and Court’s Findings
The controversy began when UPPCL discovered a billing error that led to an undercharged amount on the electricity bill of Om Food Manufacturing Center, a commercial electricity consumer. Two years after the billing mistake, UPPCL issued a notice demanding an additional payment of ₹54 lakh. The High Court bench found that although the billing mistake was acknowledged by UPPCL, the demand for additional payment was issued much later.
The court directed UPPCL to provide a detailed breakdown of the billing error along with a rebate to the consumer, allowing them to settle the revised amount within a specified timeframe. Importantly, the court emphasized that no coercive measures could be implemented against the consumer, given that the demand was made after a considerable delay. The court stated that UPPCL must pursue a civil court recovery if the dues remain unpaid.
Legal Precedents and Statutory Interpretation
The bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla, which explains that Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, does not prevent a licensee from making a supplementary demand post the expiry of a limitation period, especially in cases of genuine errors. However, the ruling also noted that the recovery process should not unduly burden the consumer.
According to Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act, the licensee must issue a 15-day notice before undertaking actions like disconnecting electricity for recovery purposes. The High Court reiterated that coercive actions are not permissible, and UPPCL should seek redress through civil litigation for the principal amount in question.
More Read
Representation and Legal Counsel
The petitioner, Om Food Manufacturing Center, was represented by Advocate Kumar Ankit Srivastava. Advocate Udit Chandra appeared on behalf of UPPCL, while Standing Counsel Piyush Shukla represented the State.
This case highlights the complexities involved in electricity billing and the legal remedies available to consumers facing retrospective billing adjustments.
