High Court

"In spite of the order dated 11.09.2024, counter affidavit has not been filed yet. The order dated 19.02.2016 of the Consumer Forum has also not been complied. Permanent Disconnection has been made and thereafter Demand Notice has been raised. On being asked as to what is the procedure for Permanent Disconnection, learned counsel for the Electricity Corporation fairly submitted that a Temporary Disconnection Notice is given. On being further asked as to whether any such notice has been given to the petitioner, learned counsel for the Electricity Corporation submitted that it does not appear to have been given. Let the entire records pertaining to Permanent Disconnection and raising of the Demand Notice be produced before the Court as the petitioner is senior citizen and apparently the order passed in his favour by the Consumer Forum has not been complied and order dated 11.09.2024 of this Court to file counter affidavit has also not been complied in spite of six months. As the opposite party No.2 has not cooperated in the proceedings, he shall appear before this Court on 03.04.2025. Cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed upon the opposite party No.2 for not cooperating in these proceedings and making the senior citizen run to Court. They have been sitting in this Court since morning and waiting for the case to be taken up and now when it has been taken up, we find that even the pleadings have not been filed yet. Payment to be made before the next date to the petitioner."

4.) Shri Deepak Kumar, Executive Engineer i.e. opposite party no. 2 is present.

5.) As regards, the merits of the matter, he says that the bill pertaining to the electricity connection of the petitioner was stopped being generated in 2016 itself. However, the permanent disconnection took place only on 28.12.2023. He says that prior to it, as per his information, they did not allow the electricity personnel to enter into the premises. However, he had no answer when we asked him as to why the connection could not be disconnected from the Pole. He has joined subsequently, therefore, obviously he is not aware as to under what circumstances, the bills were not generated after 2016. Now, a demand of Rs. 4,07,000/- is being raised based on the readings stored in the meter which was taken out on 28.12.2023, after adjusting the amount as per the judgment of the Consumer Forum dated 19.02.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 727 of 2012, albeit, by passing an order only after we passed an order on 20.03.2025 i.e. by an order of the same date i.e. 20.03.2025, meaning thereby, the judgment of the Consumer Forum remained complied since 2016. It is not in dispute that the same was never challenged. Of course, he also says that the last bill paid by the petitioner was only in 2009.

6.) On being confronted, the petitioner who is present along with his Counsel says that no bill was generated after 2011, and the bill which was generated in 2011 was made the subject matter of complaint before the Consumer Forum which was decided in his favour. He does not deny that he had been using the electricity even thereafter, till permanent disconnection on 28.12.2023. However, he says that no bills were generated.

7.) The scenario is rather intriguing. The matter requires an enquiry, as, possibly, the conduct of the officials of the opposite party no. 1 would also have to be seen. How is it that bills were not generated, though the electricity connection was still intact?

8.) The petitioner disputes the demand being raised on the ground that he lives in an E.W.S. house and used to consume electricity of the value not more than Rs. 500 - 600.

9.) Let the opposite party no. 1 get an enquiry conducted into the entire matter. Firstly, as to when the last bill was generated in respect of connection of the petitioner; why the bills were not generated thereafter, if it is so; who are responsible for this; why permanent disconnection did not take place; and why a situation has been created where now, a demand of about Rs. 4 lakhs and odd is being raised in the year 2025; why the decision of the Consumer Forum referred above was not complied earlier, and has been complied only on 20.03.2025; and the result of such enquiry be placed before the Court. Any other issue which may be ancillary and related to the issues referred hereinabove may also be got enquired.

10.) The opposite party no. 1 shall file his own affidavit in response to the writ petition. In the said affidavit, he shall disclose the provisions contained in the relevant Act or Rules to deal with a scenario, such as, the one which has presented itself in this case; whether permanent disconnection could have been resorted, if so, what is the mechanism in respect thereof, supposing, if a consumer is not allowing the electricity personnel to enter the premises, then what is the mechanism in place to deal with such a situation; and whether it was followed, if not, reasons for it.

11.) In the meantime, the petitioner who is aged about 75 years and his family cannot live without electricity, therefore, a fresh prepaid electricity connection be provided at the premises of the petitioner on payment of due charges and completion of requisite formalities, but without insisting on clearance of the old dues, subject to further orders in this writ petition and without prejudice to the rights of the opposite parties to claim the electricity dues, as the same is subject matter of inquiry / consideration. Let this be done within a week.

12.) The petitioner who is present undertakes to deposit Rs. 3000/- per month in this Court which shall be adjusted towards the old electricity dues, which are in dispute, as and when the occasion arises, or shall be paid back to the petitioner, if no dues are payable by him.

13.) On the oral request of the opposite party no. 2, the cost of Rs. 25,000/- imposed vide order dated 20.03.2025 is reduced to Rs. 15,000/- which shall be paid by him to the petitioner within a period of three days.

14.) List/Put up this case after six weeks.

15.) The Managing Director, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited shall ensure compliance of this order. A compliance report shall be filed by the Managing Director, , who will be impleaded as an opposite party during course of the day, by 28.04.2025. Order Date :- 3.4.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

"In spite of the order dated 11.09.2024, counter affidavit has not been filed yet. The order dated 19.02.2016 of the Consumer Forum has also not been complied. Permanent Disconnection has been made and thereafter Demand Notice has been raised. On being asked as to what is the procedure for Permanent Disconnection, learned counsel for the Electricity Corporation fairly submitted that a Temporary Disconnection Notice is given. On being further asked as to whether any such notice has been given to the petitioner, learned counsel for the Electricity Corporation submitted that it does not appear to have been given. Let the entire records pertaining to Permanent Disconnection and raising of the Demand Notice be produced before the Court as the petitioner is senior citizen and apparently the order passed in his favour by the Consumer Forum has not been complied and order dated 11.09.2024 of this Court to file counter affidavit has also not been complied in spite of six months. As the opposite party No.2 has not cooperated in the proceedings, he shall appear before this Court on 03.04.2025. Cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed upon the opposite party No.2 for not cooperating in these proceedings and making the senior citizen run to Court. They have been sitting in this Court since morning and waiting for the case to be taken up and now when it has been taken up, we find that even the pleadings have not been filed yet. Payment to be made before the next date to the petitioner."

4.) Shri Deepak Kumar, Executive Engineer i.e. opposite party no. 2 is present.

5.) As regards, the merits of the matter, he says that the bill pertaining to the electricity connection of the petitioner was stopped being generated in 2016 itself. However, the permanent disconnection took place only on 28.12.2023. He says that prior to it, as per his information, they did not allow the electricity personnel to enter into the premises. However, he had no answer when we asked him as to why the connection could not be disconnected from the Pole. He has joined subsequently, therefore, obviously he is not aware as to under what circumstances, the bills were not generated after 2016. Now, a demand of Rs. 4,07,000/- is being raised based on the readings stored in the meter which was taken out on 28.12.2023, after adjusting the amount as per the judgment of the Consumer Forum dated 19.02.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 727 of 2012, albeit, by passing an order only after we passed an order on 20.03.2025 i.e. by an order of the same date i.e. 20.03.2025, meaning thereby, the judgment of the Consumer Forum remained complied since 2016. It is not in dispute that the same was never challenged. Of course, he also says that the last bill paid by the petitioner was only in 2009.

6.) On being confronted, the petitioner who is present along with his Counsel says that no bill was generated after 2011, and the bill which was generated in 2011 was made the subject matter of complaint before the Consumer Forum which was decided in his favour. He does not deny that he had been using the electricity even thereafter, till permanent disconnection on 28.12.2023. However, he says that no bills were generated.

7.) The scenario is rather intriguing. The matter requires an enquiry, as, possibly, the conduct of the officials of the opposite party no. 1 would also have to be seen. How is it that bills were not generated, though the electricity connection was still intact?

8.) The petitioner disputes the demand being raised on the ground that he lives in an E.W.S. house and used to consume electricity of the value not more than Rs. 500 - 600.

9.) Let the opposite party no. 1 get an enquiry conducted into the entire matter. Firstly, as to when the last bill was generated in respect of connection of the petitioner; why the bills were not generated thereafter, if it is so; who are responsible for this; why permanent disconnection did not take place; and why a situation has been created where now, a demand of about Rs. 4 lakhs and odd is being raised in the year 2025; why the decision of the Consumer Forum referred above was not complied earlier, and has been complied only on 20.03.2025; and the result of such enquiry be placed before the Court. Any other issue which may be ancillary and related to the issues referred hereinabove may also be got enquired.

10.) The opposite party no. 1 shall file his own affidavit in response to the writ petition. In the said affidavit, he shall disclose the provisions contained in the relevant Act or Rules to deal with a scenario, such as, the one which has presented itself in this case; whether permanent disconnection could have been resorted, if so, what is the mechanism in respect thereof, supposing, if a consumer is not allowing the electricity personnel to enter the premises, then what is the mechanism in place to deal with such a situation; and whether it was followed, if not, reasons for it.

11.) In the meantime, the petitioner who is aged about 75 years and his family cannot live without electricity, therefore, a fresh prepaid electricity connection be provided at the premises of the petitioner on payment of due charges and completion of requisite formalities, but without insisting on clearance of the old dues, subject to further orders in this writ petition and without prejudice to the rights of the opposite parties to claim the electricity dues, as the same is subject matter of inquiry / consideration. Let this be done within a week.

12.) The petitioner who is present undertakes to deposit Rs. 3000/- per month in this Court which shall be adjusted towards the old electricity dues, which are in dispute, as and when the occasion arises, or shall be paid back to the petitioner, if no dues are payable by him.

13.) On the oral request of the opposite party no. 2, the cost of Rs. 25,000/- imposed vide order dated 20.03.2025 is reduced to Rs. 15,000/- which shall be paid by him to the petitioner within a period of three days.

14.) List/Put up this case after six weeks.

15.) The Managing Director, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited shall ensure compliance of this order. A compliance report shall be filed by the Managing Director, , who will be impleaded as an opposite party during course of the day, by 28.04.2025. Order Date :- 3.4.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]