Final tariff fixation controls electricity dues, barring delayed payment surcharge and disconnection based on earlier provisional bills.

The writ petitions were held maintainable because the challenge concerned the legality of demanding past dues and surcharge before final retail tariff fixation, not a routine billing dispute. Delayed Payment Surcharge and disconnection notices were found unlawful because consumer liability crystallised only after the State Commission finally fixed retail tariff and bills were raised thereafter; surcharge could not rest on earlier provisional or fluctuating tariff positions. The DVC was permitted to recover only the differential arrears between amounts paid and amounts due under the final tariff, with credit for instalments already paid, and the two-year bar under Section 56(2) was held inapplicable to those differential claims.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the statutory consumer grievance mechanism under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulations; (ii) whether Delayed Payment Surcharge could be levied, and disconnection notices issued, before final retail tariff was determined by the State Commission; (iii) whether the DVC could claim in 2021 dues based on earlier bills and recover only the differential amount after final tariff fixation.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the statutory consumer grievance mechanism under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulations.

Analysis: The statutory grievance machinery was noticed, but the controversy was not treated as a routine billing dispute. The Court held that the petitions raised the legality of demanding past dues and surcharge before final retail tariff fixation, which warranted writ scrutiny. The alternative remedy rule was therefore not applied as an absolute bar.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether Delayed Payment Surcharge could be levied, and disconnection notices issued, before final retail tariff was determined by the State Commission.

Analysis: Retail tariff for supply within the State had to be fixed by the State Commission under the statutory scheme, and the liability of consumers crystallised only when final tariff was determined in 2020 and bills were raised thereafter. Delayed Payment Surcharge was treated as penal in nature and dependent on a prior default in paying due electricity charges. Since there was no prior final tariff-based default before 2021, surcharge and consequent disconnection could not lawfully be founded on earlier fluctuating or ad hoc tariff positions.

Conclusion: Delayed Payment Surcharge and the disconnection notices were illegal and could not be sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the DVC could claim in 2021 dues based on earlier bills and recover only the differential amount after final tariff fixation.

Analysis: The Court held that the earlier tariff positions merged into the final tariff determined by the State Commission, and the consumers' liability arose only upon final crystallisation of tariff and subsequent billing. The DVC was entitled to recover the difference between amounts actually paid and amounts due on the basis of the final tariffs, after giving credit for instalments already paid. The two-year bar under Section 56(2) was not attracted to the differential claims raised after final tariff fixation in 2020 and billing in 2021.

Conclusion: The DVC could claim the differential arrears based on final tariff, but not Delayed Payment Surcharge.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded in part: the surcharge and disconnection action were set aside, electricity supply was directed to be restored, and the DVC was confined to recovering only the tariff differential on the basis of the finally determined retail rates.

---