The court was hearing two PILs seeking a direction to state government to reduce electricity bill for the lockdown period
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to intervene in two public interest litigations (PILs) seeking relief against excessive electricity bills during lockdown and directed the petitioners to exercise alternative remedies available and approach grievance forum as per Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) guidelines.
Besides, the court asked electricity provider companies including Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) to act on complaints of the petitioners at the earliest and dispose of the PILs.
A Division bench of Justices P B Varale and Milind N Jadhav heard through videoconference two petitions including a PIL filed by a Mumbai-based businessman, seeking direction to the state government and electricity providing companies to reduce electricity bill for the month of June and to formulate a strategy to avoid exorbitant electricity bills in light of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Ravindra M Desai, a 49-year-old businessman from Mulund filed a plea through advocate Vishal Saxena against state ministry of Energy along with electricity providers such as Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), Adani Electricity, Tata Power among others.
Desai claimed his electricity bill for the month of June was 10 times more than the average monthly usage, adding that he has already incurred losses due to the lockdown.
Advocate Saxena also submitted that his client had approached MSEDCL with a complaint last month before filing the PIL.
The Court also heard a PIL filed by Mahibub D Sheikh (62), a social worker from Solapur filed through advocate Ranjit Shinde raising concerns over exorbitant bills.
Sheikh had said consumers were given the option of submitting their self-readings for the purpose of billing, in lieu of which bills would be generated based upon the consumer’s average power consumption during the months of December, January, and February.
The plea stated that from April, Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) raised the power tariff for consumers of all categories and slabs of power consumption, with increments instead of the reductions sought.
Sheikh sought from the Court to roll back or defer the revised tariff and continue charging as per the tariff existed prior to April 1, this year. The plea had also sought from the Court to direct the authorities not to take any coercive steps such as disconnection of electricity in case of failure to make payments until the case was decided.
Advocate Deepa Chavan for state opposed the plea and said that under the Electricity Act, consumer redressal mechanism is available at MSEDCL and MERC and petitioners can avail it. Chavan said that MSEDCL was already looking into several grievances related to power bills and in most cases, bill amounts were not erroneous. The state government opposed the pleas and said that they were not maintainable.
After hearing submissions, the bench led by Justice Varale refused to intervene in the PILs and directed the petitioners to seek alternative remedy and to raise their complaint before the grievance redressal forums and directed companies including MSEDCL to act upon them at earliest. If not addressed by it, the Court said that petitioners can take further legal recourse and approach appellate authorities and judicial forums.
Disposing of the PILs, the Court also asked the MSEDCL and MERC to ensure that citizens were provided links for online complaints and redressal without causing any inconvenience during lockdown.