Aynal Haque Mondal vs West Bengal State Electricity ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1219 Cal

    06
15.03.2022

TN WPA No.3008 of 2022

Aynal Haque Mondal Vs.

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and others

(Via Video Conference)

Md. Zellar Rahaman .... for the petitioner

Mr. Amitabh Shukla, Mr. P.C. Pandey .... for the WBSEDCL

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner received an electricity bill dated

September 29, 2021 for dues of a period pertaining to

more than two years prior to the date of the bill. It is

submitted that in view of Section 56(2) of the

Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the

2003 Act"), the said claim was time-barred and the bill

ought to be set aside.

Learned counsel further argues that it is a

debatable question as to whether the West Bengal

Electricity Regulatory Commission (WBERC) has the

jurisdiction to decide the issue at all.

Learned counsel appearing for the Distribution

Licensee submits that one of the bills, the due under

which is also a component of the present claim, was

challenged in a previous writ petition before this

court.

In the said matter, by an order dated January

21, 2021, a coordinate Bench of this court had

directed that the matter be moved before the RGRO. A

time-limit was stipulated in the said order. The

petitioner was given liberty to approach the RGRO,

that is, the Regional Grievance Redressal Officer.

As such, the present challenge, inter alia, on the

same amount of dues is not maintainable in law.

Undoubtedly, the present writ petition is not

maintainable in respect of the specific dues in respect

of which the petitioner had moved the earlier writ

petition, on which the coordinate Bench judgment was

rendered. However, as regards the subsequent bills,

the writ petition is not barred by the principle of Res

Judicata.

However, as rightly submitted by learned

counsel for the WBSEDCL, the extant Regulations

under the 2003 Act provide for a forum for the

resolution of billing disputes.

Even the question of the claim being time-

barred can be set out as one of the grounds of such a

challenge, if preferred before the RGRO.

As regards the powers of the WBERC to decide

the issue involved in the present writ petition, no such

question arises in the present case, since the

concerned RGRO is the appropriate authority under

the Regulations to decide such disputes.

In such view of the matter, WPA No.3008 of

2022 is disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty

to approach the concerned RGRO with the billing

dispute as ventilated in the present writ petition.

If so approached, the Regional Grievance

Redressal Officer shall decide the question after

affording opportunity of hearing to the interested

parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within

two months from the date of such reference to the

RGRO.

It is made clear that all questions raised in the

present writ petition, including the applicability of

Section 56(2) of the 2003 Act, are kept open for being

decided by the RGRO, if so moved by the petitioner,

on the basis of the materials produced before the

RGRO.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)