Less than a month after it was held that Chandigarh Power Distribution Limited (CPDL) could not raise electricity bill demand of Rs 14.77 lakh from a consumer for period before it officially took over the power supply system, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday stayed the operation of the impugned order.
Fixing July 23 as the next date of hearing in the case, the Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda had added: “In case the amount of the assessed electricity bills has not been deposited by the respondents so far, no coercive action will be taken for the recovery of the same as well”.
The orders came on an appeal filed by CPDL against the consumers through senior counsel D.S. Patwalia and advocate Nitin Bhasin. Among other things, Patwalia contended that another petition, “Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others” was directed to be heard along with the writ petition in the petition filed by the respondent-consumers.
The IOC writ petition was disposed of by the Single Judge vide order dated April 20, relegating the petitioners therein to avail the remedy under the provisions of the Electricity Act. But “on the very same issue, the same objections of the appellants have not been accepted and have been overruled. Hence, there exist two contradictory views on the same issue”.
Taking up the matter, the Bench issued notice of motion before adding that the counsel assisting the Bench in the matter were unable to rebut that “on the same issue, there exist two views of the Single Bench, which need to be adjudicated upon as to which view taken by the learned Single Judge is the right view”.
The controversy before the court stemmed from an inspection carried out on November 17, 2025. The CPDL concluded that an incorrect multiplication factor had been applied in earlier bills, resulting in short payment. A revised demand was consequently issued. But the consumers challenged not just the calculation, but the authority.
The matter was brought to the Single Judge’s notice after the residents, holding a non-residential electricity connection, sought the setting aside of the assessment order dated December 10, 2025, whereby their objections were rejected and Rs 14,77,823 was demanded.
The case turned on Chandigarh’s electricity privatization framework. While CPDL was incorporated in April 2022, the actual transfer of assets, liabilities and operations from the UT Administration took place only through a notification dated January 31, 2025.
The Single Judge held that the date was decisive. “The Administration has not transferred the right to the respondent company to raise demand for the period before the transfer date; thus, demand raised before the transfer date by the respondent is bad in the eyes of the law.”
