[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vidhyotma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9098
1 WP-47002-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 47002 of 2025
VIDHYOTMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Amay Bajaj, learned counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
''7.1 यह क, यािचकाकता को यथ मांक 1 व 2 को यह आदे श दया जाए
क वह यािचकाकता को आव यक सेवाओं से विचंत न कर जो करण
यायालय म वचाराधीन है उसे यायालय को वचारण करने दे एंव
यािचकाकता को नए व ुत कने शन दे ने का आदे श दान कर और एने चर
पी/1 को िनर त करने क कृ पा कर।
7.2. यह क, यथ मांक 2 को यह िनदश दे क वह यािचकाकता को नए
कने शन आव यक सेवाओं के अ तगत कोई बाधा न उ प न कर जससे
वषकाल के दौरान यािचकाकता के प रवारजन व उनके ब च को आव यक
सेवाओं म कोई परे शानी नह ं हो।
7.3 यह क, यािचकाकता को इस यािचका क व उ करण क प र थितय
को दे खते हुए अ य कोई सहायता जो माननीय यायालय यािचकाकता को
दलवाना आव यक समझे दलवाई जाने क कृ पा कर।''
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary
objection as regards maintainability of this petition on ground of availability
of alternate remedy to the petitioner under the provisions of M.P. Electricity
Act, 2023.
3. Reliance has been placed by him on the order dated 18.08.2022
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9098
2 WP-47002-2025
passed in Writ Appeal No.861/2022 by this Court in Madhya Pradesh
Pashchim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited (MPPKVVCL) V/s.
Maral Overseas Limited and of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2109-
2110 of 2004 (K.C.Ninan V/s. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others
2023 (14) SCC 431 to contend that the Electricity Supply Code providing for
recoupment of electricity dues of a previous consumer from a new owner
have a reasonable nexus with the objects of the 2003 Act.
4. In Maral Overseas Limited (supra) it has been held by the
Division Bench of this Court as under :-
"09. Sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Electricity
Act, 2003 mandates that every distribution licensee
shall establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the
consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be
specified by the Commission. As per sub-section (6)
any consumer who is aggrieved by non-redressal of his
grievance under sub-section (5), make a representation
for the redressal of grievance to an authority to be
known as Ombudsman. Sub-sections (4), (5), (6) & (7)
are reproduced below:-
"(4) Where the State Commission permits a consumer
or class of consumers to receive a supply of electricity
from-8-a person other than the distribution licensee of
his area of supply, the such consumer shall be liable to
pay an additional surcharge on the charges of wheeling,
as may be specified by the State Commission, to meet
the fixed cost of such distribution licensee arising out of
his obligation to supply.
(5) Every distribution licensee shall, within six months
from the appointed date or date of grant of licence,
whichever is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of
grievances of the consumers in accordance with the
guidelines as may be specified by the State
Commission.
(6) Any consumer, who is aggrieved by non-redressal of
his grievances under sub-section(5), may make a
representation for the redressal of his grievance to an
authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed
or designated by the State Commission.
(7) The Ombudsman shall settle the grievance of the
consumer within such time and in such manner as may
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9098
3 WP-47002-2025
be specified by the State Commission."
10. In exercise of the power conferred under Section
42 & 181, the State Government framed a regulation
called "the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory
Commission Establishment of Forum and Electricity
Ombudsman for Redressal of Grievance of the
Consumer) (Revision-1) Regulations, 2009". Chapter 3
provides for the constitution of the Grievance Redressal
Forum. Any person aggrieved by the order of the Forum
may make representation to the Ombudsman appointed
/ designated by the Commission. Chapter 4 provides for
the appointment / designation of Electricity
Ombudsman.
11. Thereafter, in the exercise of the power conferred
under Section 181(2)(t) read with Section 43(1), Section
181(2)(x) read with Section 44, Section 48(b), Section
50 and Section 56 of the-9-Electricity Act, 2003 (No.36
of 2003), Section 9(j) of Madhya Pradesh Vidyut
Sudhar Adhiniyam, 2000 (No.4 of 2001) and all other
powers enabling it in that behalf, the Madhya Pradesh
Electricity Regulatory Commission had notified "the
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2004" on
16.04.2004 which was subsequently amended from time
to time.
16. So far as the judgment passed by the Apex Court
in the case of Magadh Sugar & Energy Limited (supra)
is concerned, the issue of alternative remedy has been
considered by the Apex Court and it has been held that
the State Government does not have the power to levy
taxes on the sale of electricity to BSEB and it was not
the case of the appellant that the respondent has
miscalculated the duty and penalty imposed on it in
these circumstances. It has been held that the High
Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction if the order of
authority is challenged for want of authority and
jurisdiction which is a pure question of law. With
utmost respect to the above verdict, the Madhya
Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission is the
competent forum and expert authority in the field to
give correct interpretation of Clauses of M.P. Electricity
Supply Code, 2013. The commission can examine the
issue about the entitlement of the benefit of reduced
supply to the petitioner and the act of the respondent
withdrawing the said benefits. MPERC is a special
authority constituted under the Indian Electricity Act as
well as the M.P. Electricity Supply Code to decide the
dispute between the consumer and the
licensee/Company under the M.P. Electricity Supply
Code 2013.
Hence, the impugned order dated 06.01.2022 is set
aside. Consequently, the writ petition (W.P. No.9066 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9098
4 WP-47002-2025
2021) stands dismissed. The writ appeal stands allowed,
with no order as to cost."
5. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronunciation of law by the
Division Bench of this Court, there is no iota of doubt that the alternate
remedy to the petitioner as contended by the respondents is very much
available to him. All the questions which have been raised by the petitioner
in this petition are related to factual aspects of the matter and would be better
appreciated by such authority instead of being straightaway appreciated in a
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Thus, sustaining the objection as taken by the respondents, this
petition in view of availability of alternate remedy to the petitioner is
dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail such alternate remedy.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
