Patna High Court - Orders
Munna Kumar Sharma vs The South Bihar Power Distribution ... on 10 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Sinha
Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17911 of 2018
======================================================
Munna Kumar Sharma son of Late Ravindra Prasad Sharma resident of Ramji
Chouk, P.O. Bataganj, P.S. Digha, District Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited and Ors
2. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Danapur,
Patna.
3. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Digha, Danapur, Patna.
4. The Junior Electrical Engineer, Digha Electric Supply Division, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
10 10-11-20251. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.06.2018 passed in Case No. 151 of 2016 by CGRF whereby it has refused to interfere with the electricity charges for the disconnected period.
3. Ms. Simran Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order passed by CGRF has been challenged before the appellate authority/Ombudsman. The bill raised for the disconnected period was also one of the subject matter before the CGRF but the CGRF refused to entertain this dispute on the ground that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the forum.
4. Learned counsel for the SBPDCL submits that since the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the appellate authority against the order dated 29.06.2018 as such, Patna High Court CWJC No.17911 of 2018(10) dt.10-11-2025 2/2 this issue regarding the bill for the disconnected period can also be agitated by the petitioner before the appellate authority.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by CGRF could not be challenged earlier before the appellate authority i.e., Ombudsman because at that point of time the office of Ombudsman was vacant. It has been informed at the bar that now Ombudsman office is functioning.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, this writ application is disposed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the issue regarding the bill for disconnected period before the appellate authority i.e., Ombudsman.
7. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the present writ application is disposed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) HarshPandey/-
U