EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(O AND M), PASHCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITEDversusM/S PATEL COTTON INDUSTRIES

     C/SCA/5700/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5700 of 2023


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================

            Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

================================================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(O AND M), PASHCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY
                         LIMITED
                          Versus
            M/S PATEL COTTON INDUSTRIES & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PARAM V SHAH(9473) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                             Date : 27/03/2026

                               JUDGMENT


1.      Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. Param Shah,
waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent
No.1.


2.      With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, the petition has been taken up for "nal hearing
today.


3.      By way of present petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Gujarat Electricity



                                 Page 1 of 5
     C/SCA/5700/2023                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026




Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and related matters)
Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Regulations”),
petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

        “a) To allow this petition.

        b) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a
        writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate
        writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated
        12.4.2022 (Ann-A) passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Gujarat State,
        Ahmedabad in Case No.82 of 2021 directing petitioner to revise energy bills
        from March, 2019 onwards and refund any additional amount if collected by
        way of refund and also quash and set aside order dated 13.7.2022 (Ann-B)
        passed by Electricity Ombudsman in Case No.82/2021 (Under Review).

        c) To stay, the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated
        12.4.2022 (Ann-A) passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Gujarat State,
        Ahmedabad in Case No.82 of 2021 directing petitioner to revise energy bills
        from March, 2019 onwards and refund any additional amount if collected by
        way of refund and also quash and set aside order dated 13.7.2022 (Ann-B)
        passed by Electricity Ombudsman in Case No.82/2021 (Under Review).

        d) To grant ad-interim relief in terms of Para-9(C).

        e) To award cost of this petition.

        f) To grant such other and further relief as may be deemed 6t by this
        Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.”


4.      Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
respondent No.1 is HT consumer of petitioner vide consumer
no.17516 and availed bene"ts of seasonal consumer under HTP-I tari:
having contract demand of 1000 KVA. That, the respondent No.1 is
covered under seasonal tari: and Clause-14.11 of Tari: speaks about
Seasonal Consumers taking HT Supply. That, the respondent No.1
approached Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum by "ling complaint
contending that its billing was done as per tari: order issued by GERC
upto February, 2019 for recovery of demand charges and till then,
demand charges were recovered for actual demand utilized by it in on
seasonal period. That, the respondent No.1 further contended that


                                       Page 2 of 5
   C/SCA/5700/2023                               JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026




thereafter, from March, 2019 the petitioner issued bill and recovery of
demand charges were made as if the respondent No.1 was not
seasonal consumer. That, the respondent No.1 demanded refund of
demand charges recovered from it from March, 2019 to May, 2021.
That, the petitioner appeared and "led reply and contended that
before April, 2019, the calculation of demand charges in respect of
seasonal consumer during on season period were as per the highest
of Actual demand recorded during billing month, 100 KVA whereas,
during o: season no demand charges were calculated. That, GUVNL
has corrected the existing HT billing software and logic of calculation
of demand charges as per tari: provision to remove ambiguity
between tari: order and logic of HT Billing. That, the CGRF, after
hearing parties held that there was no dispute that respondent No.1
has opted for seasonal tari: under the provisions of seasonal tari: as
per the GERC tari: order. That, the CGRF, after reproducing provisions
of Clauses-14.11.1, 14.11.2, 14.11.3, 14.11.5 and 14.11.6 held that
the demand of respondent No.1 was not in accordance with GERC
tari: provision. That, the GERC accordingly, vide its order dated
18.08.2021 did not accept the complaint of the respondent No. 1.
Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1 approached the
Electricity Ombudsman, Gujarat State, Rajkot by "ling application
being Case No.82 of 2021, whereby, the Electricity Ombudsman after
hearing the parties vide judgment and order dated 12.04.2022
directed petitioner to continue with prevailing billing system i.e. billing
prior to March, 2019 in such type of cases and directed to revise the
energy bills for the month of March, 2019 onwards as per the
prevailing practice and also directed that, any additional amount if,
collected by way of such type of billing, be refunded to the accounts
of the respondent No.1 by giving credit into the next bill. That, against
the said order, petitioner preferred Review Application before the


                                 Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/5700/2023                            JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026




Electricity Ombudsman, which came to be rejected by the Electricity
Ombudsman vide judgment and order dated 13.07.2022.


5.      Being aggrieved and dissatis"ed with the inaction on the part of
the respondent No.2, the petitioner has preferred this petition.


6.      Heard Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Param Shah, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1.


7.      Learned counsel Ms. Bhaya has submitted that the learned
Ombudsman has failed to appreciate the provisions of Clause-14.11 of
the tari: order while rejecting the review application preferred by the
present petitioner. She has submitted that there was no tari: refund
and it was by mistake calculated and on analysis of the HT Billing
Software, it was found that there was inadvertent mistake in the same
and therefore, consumers were being charged improperly. She has
submitted that merely because the computer has incorrectly
calculated any tari:, there is no question of any refund of tari: nor
they have revised their billing method and therefore, under such
circumstances, the respondent authority has passed the order and
observed that the amount which is deposited by the respondent No.1
is to be refunded or to be deducted in the next bill by the petitioner.


8.      I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. It appears from
the record that the respondent authority has not considered the facts
in its true and proper spirit, as there was no question of any
modi"cation in the billing method on the basis of the tari: refund but,
there was some inadvertent mistake while calculating the bill and


                                 Page 4 of 5
           C/SCA/5700/2023                                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026




   therefore, this Court is of the opinion that without entering into the
   merits, the matter is required to be remanded back to the concerned
   respondent authority for deciding the issue afresh.


   9.         In the result, the present petition is partly allowed. The
   impugned order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned Electricity
   Ombudsman, Gujarat State, Rajkot in Case No. 82 of 2021 is hereby
   quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the
   concerned respondent authority for deciding the issue afresh, after
   a:ording proper opportunity to all the concerned parties, which shall
   be decided by the respondent authority in accordance with law, as
   expeditiously as possible. In the meantime, the interim relief, granted
   by this Court vide order dated 17.04.2023, is hereby vacated. It is
   open for all the concerned parties to raise all the contentions
   available in the eye of law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
   extent. There shall be no order as to costs.



                                                                      (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

   Dolly




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 01/04/2026 17:25:53


                                                       Page 5 of 5