Deepak Kataria vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Ors.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the final order dated 18.03.2026, Annexure P-7, passed by the Corporate Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the respondent Corporation.

Learned counsel contended that the petitioner had let out the premises to the seventh respondent - Blu-Smart Charge Private Limited and had issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the installation of an electricity supply meter, which was installed on 26.12.2022. The insolvency process against the company was initiated vide order dated 16.01.2026, and the petitioner thereafter got possession of the premises in May, 2025. However, the respondent - Nigam has issued an electricity consumption bill in the petitioner’s name for an amount of ₹46,65,290. This is despite the fact that it has already approached the Resolution Professional (RP) as an operational creditor, for claiming the same amount due from the company. Accordingly, there is no basis to issue the bill in question in the petitioner’s name.

Learned counsel for the Nigam, however, submitted that the petitioner had given an undertaking in terms of the Nigam’s Regulations that he would clear all liabilities in case the tenant defaulted, and vacated the premises without paying the dues. Although, the Nigam has filed a claim before the RP being an operational creditor, there is no certainty that it would get the entire due amount from there. In case of any shortfall, liability would still be on the petitioner. And in any case, the petitioner’s interests have been taken care of by the Electricity Ombudsman while passing the impugned order dated 27.04.2026, which is a conditional order directing that in case recovery from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) fully covers the amount due to the Nigam, the deposit made by the petitioner shall be refunded with interest. He also states that during pendency of the petition the amount due from the petitioner has been recalculated, and as per the latest demand raised it stands reduced to ₹7,38,811, which has been conveyed to the petitioner vide memo dated 26.05.2026. Accordingly, he is required to deposit only forty per cent of the said amount in terms of the impugned order.

Considering the submissions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as the petitioner’s interests have been fully secured vide the impugned order dated 27.04.2026. It has been specifically directed that only forty per cent of the outstanding amount is to be deposited by the petitioner as an interim deposit under protest, and the amount shall be treated as additional security which shall carry interest at the prevailing bank fixed deposit rate applicable to the DHBVN consumer from the date of deposit until final adjustment or refund. Further, it has been directed if recovery from the CIRP fully covers the balance amount due, the entire interim deposit along with interest accrued shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith and in case of partial recovery, the petitioner’s liability shall be limited strictly to the uncovered gap and no double recovery shall be effected in any manner.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.