E-Paper
Ludhiana: Ombudsman pulls up PSPCL over five-year billing dispute
The Punjab Electricity Ombudsman criticized PSPCL for nearly five years of harassment of an industrial consumer over billing and disconnection issues.
The Punjab Electricity Ombudsman has pulled up Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) for subjecting a Ludhiana-based industrial consumer to nearly five years of avoidable harassment after the corporation continued to bill him even after he formally applied for permanent disconnection of his electricity connection.
The consumer, Sunil Kumar, runs a forging unit in Sherpur under a large supply (LS) electricity connection.
The dispute dates back to 2018, when PSPCL booked Kumar’s unit for alleged unauthorised use of electricity and imposed a penalty of ₹21.94 lakh. The corporation claimed that induction heaters in his unit were being used without prior approval.
Challenging this assessment, Kumar approached the divisional commissioner, Patiala, the designated appellate authority under the Electricity Act. He contended that the induction heaters had already been declared and approved at the time of load extension.
In March 2020, the appellate authority quashed the entire penalty, holding that the case did not amount to unauthorised use of electricity. Despite this clear ruling, PSPCL delayed refunding the deposited amount. Kumar then approached the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (PSERC) for directions to release the refund.
Meanwhile, Kumar shut down his unit and formally applied for permanent disconnection (PDCO) on September 18, 2023, completing all formalities under the electricity supply rules.
Under these norms, the utility is obliged to disconnect supply and stop billing. However, PSPCL neither disconnected the supply nor removed the meter, continuing to raise electricity bills until November 28, 2024.
The utility justified the continued billing citing the pendency of litigation, a point later noted by the Ombudsman.
After fresh appellate proceedings and legal opinion, PSPCL processed the refund in March 2025, almost five years after the penalty had been quashed. However, ₹5.31 lakh was adjusted against post-disconnection bills, which Kumar argued violated the Supply Code, 2014. This prompted another round before PSERC, which ultimately closed the petition after recording that the refund had been made.
The dispute then reached the Punjab Electricity Ombudsman, which noted procedural lapses in the handling of the case. In its concluding observations, the Punjab Electricity Ombudsman noted that the record reflected clear procedural lapses on the part of PSPCL, particularly the prolonged delay in refunding an amount that had been set aside by the appellate authority and the continuation of billing even after the consumer had formally applied for permanent disconnection.
While dismissing the appeal on technical grounds of maintainability, the Ombudsman observed that such lapses defeat the very purpose of consumer protection mechanisms and place an undue burden on consumers, emphasising that utilities are expected to strictly adhere to statutory timelines and Supply Code provisions to avoid avoidable harassment and litigation.
