Sushil Garg vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 14160 P&H

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111691




                                                        2023:PHHC:111691

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH
123
                                                      CWP-18715-2023
                                           Date of decision: 25.08.2023

SUSHIL GARG                                                 .........Petitioner

                                VERSUS


UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND
OTHERS
                                    ........Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

                             *****
Present:-   Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate,
            Mr. Amandeep Kumar, Advocate
            Ms. Garima Modi, Advocate and
            Ms. Hardeep Kaur, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Vivek Saini, Advocate
            for respondent No.1-UHBVN.

                             *****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Prayer in the present writ petition was for seeking issuance

of directions to respondents to award interest on delayed adjustment

done by the respondents.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has

an electricity connection bearing Account No. SM/5-41(P25L501-

1024) in his name at Village Mehrana, Gohana Road, Panipat with

connected load of 3300.000 KW. The respondents raised a bill of

overburden on account of line loss to the extent of 1% in the year 2014.

The said demand was challenged by the petitioner by filing an

application before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. The

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111691

CWP-18715-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:111691

above said complaint was allowed by the Consumer Grievance

Redressal Forum vide order dated 15.01.2015 by holding that the feeder

is a general feeder and the respondents were directed to correct the

bills as line losses could not be build to the petitioner. The respondents

Distribution Licensee challenged the said order by means of filing a

batch of writ petition including CWP-14018 of 2015 before this Court

while the petitioner preferred an application before the Electricity

Ombudsman for execution of the said order which was disposed of by

the Electricity Ombudsman directing the respondents to implement the

order passed by the CGRF. Nonetheless, without prejudice to the rights

of the petitioner, the access amount as demanded by the respondent-

Distribution Licensee was deposited by the petitioner.

The above said writ petition was subsequently dismissed

vide judgment dated 25.08.2022.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the

demand raised by the respondent-distribution licensee having been

found untenable, the petitioner gets entitled to the interest on the above

said amount.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Vivek Saini, Advocate appears and accepts on behalf

of respondent No.1.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1

contends that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy for

raising his claims before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum

and that the writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111691

CWP-18715-2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:111691

alternative efficacious remedies available to him.

In view of the above, counsel for the petitioner does not

press the instant petition at this stage so as to take recourse to the

alternative remedies available to him in accordance with law.

The present petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty

as aforesaid.

                                              (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
                                                   JUDGE
AUGUST 25, 2023
Vishal sharma
                      Whether speaking/reasoned           :      Yes/No
                      Whether reportable                  :      Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111691

3 of 3