PIL-Like Pleas Not Maintainable Before SERCs, Says GERC

The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC), in its latest order, said that the existing laws do not allow State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) to entertain Public Interest Litigation (PIL) like pleas. The order came to the fore when an individual petitioner moved the GERC for its intervention.

He argued that several consumers saw unusually high electricity bills during lockdown periods when production had largely stopped. According to him, the spike was caused by capacitor banks being left switched on while industrial loads were shut. The state power regulator, however, did not go to the merits of the case and dismissed the plea, citing a lack of jurisdiction in the case. It said that, as per the laws, individual petitioners, akin to PILs, are not allowed before the SERCs.

"The Commission further notes that the Petitioner, in effect, sought relief for unidentified and unnamed consumers across the State and called upon the Commission to undertake a generalised inquiry into alleged billing practices. Such a petition, in substance, is in the nature of a public interest litigation," GERC said. 

It also added, "We note that the Commission is a statutory authority constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003. Its powers and functions are circumscribed by the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulations framed thereunder. The Act does not contemplate or permit initiation of proceedings in the nature of Public Interest Litigation before the State Electricity Regulatory Commission. The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal for Electricity has consistently held that Regulatory Commissions, being creatures of statute, cannot entertain Public Interest Litigations or representative actions unless expressly authorised by the statute."

Allegations on capacitor bank metering

The petitioner contended that capacitors are passive devices designed to improve power factor and should not be treated as energy-consuming loads. In typical operation, capacitor banks consume only negligible real power—estimated at roughly 0.2 to 6 watts per kVAr—which should not translate into substantial electricity bills.

The petition further alleged that some electricity meters incorrectly compute capacitive (reactive) current as active energy consumption. As a technical illustration, the petitioner claimed that a 20 kVAr capacitor bank drawing around 27 amperes could be wrongly recorded as active energy use if meter software misinterprets reactive current as kWh consumption.

Seeking relief, he urged the Commission to constitute a Technical Investigation Team to examine metering practices across different manufacturers.

Utility challenges maintainability

DGVCL opposed the petition primarily on procedural and jurisdictional grounds. The utility argued that the petitioner failed to establish locus standi, noting that he did not demonstrate that he was an affected consumer or even provide details of his own electricity connection.

The discom also maintained that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over individual billing and metering disputes. Under the Electricity Act, 2003, such complaints must first be taken to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) and subsequently to the Electricity Ombudsman.

DGVCL further submitted that the petition effectively amounted to a public interest litigation, which regulatory commissions are not empowered to entertain. It defended its billing practices, stating that bills were based on actual meter readings and citing prior cases in which laboratory testing confirmed meter accuracy.

Commission ruling

GERC dismissed the petition on two key grounds. First, it held that the matter concerned billing and metering disputes, which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CGRF and the Ombudsman under the statutory grievance redressal framework.

Second, the Commission ruled that the petitioner failed to prove he was an “affected person” under GERC regulations, as he did not provide consumer details or evidence of personal grievance.

The regulator also clarified that, as a statutory body, it cannot entertain public interest litigations or representative petitions on behalf of unidentified consumers unless explicitly authorised by law.

With the petition dismissed on jurisdictional and procedural grounds, the Commission did not examine the technical claims regarding capacitor bank metering, leaving the issue unresolved in this order.