Calcutta High Court says ‘digital proficiency’ no excuse for lack of notice, restores company’s power supply

Rejecting the said February order of the state commission, the high court further directed the conditional restoration of the electricity supply to Bharat Hi-Tech (Cement) Private Limited.

“It is true that in the age of digital proficiency, status of a case may be available at the click of a button but it would be too unreasonable to expect of a litigant that it should keep on checking the case status everyday without there being any indication or clue as regards the date on which the matter is supposed to be taken up, to avert an ex parte order,” the March 30 order read.

The high court was hearing the revisional application filed by Bharat Hi-Tech (Cement) Private Limited, challenging the state commission’s order dated February 19, 2026. The February order had vacated the protection granted earlier against the disconnection of the electric supply.

The Calcutta High Court held that the said February 2026 order could not be sustained as it had been passed by a single-member bench, whereas a minimum of two members is required to constitute a valid bench, rendering the order coram non judice (before one who is not a judge).

‘No notice served on listing of case’

• The Calcutta High Court noted that the consumer complaint was filed by the petitioner in 2009, alleging abnormality in bills owing to harmonic supply of electricity, as well as claiming damages due to such harmonic supply.
• The court then noted that an order of January 18, 2024, passed by the district commission, rejected the challenge to the bills but found that the electricity supply suffered from harmonic distortion requiring correction.
• The court also found that the district commission had restrained the electricity provider from disconnecting the supply until the adverse effect of the harmonic supply was adjusted or rectified.
• The Calcutta High Court noted the cement company’s contention that the order under challenge was passed without notice. But the corporation countered it by asserting that inclusion of the matter in the cause list itself amounted to sufficient notice.

• Analysing this issue, the court pointed out that the publication of a matter in the cause list of a court ordinarily constitutes constructive notice to the parties, but such a rule may not be aptly applicable to the facts of the present case.
• If on a particular date, which is fixed for appearance of parties before the state commission, the case is not taken up and no subsequent date is fixed, it would be fairly reasonable for a party to expect that a notice would be served upon to it before the case is taken up on a date that was never fixed in the presence of the parties.
• The Calcutta High Court found that the order passed by the district commission on January 18, 2024, rejecting the challenge to the bills, would be sufficient for the moment.
• It directed the corporation to restore the supply of the cement company immediately upon furnishing a security deposit.

Multiple proceedings, no relief

The petitioner filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the district commission alleging a deficiency in service by the Damodar Valley Corporation.

It was mentioned that initially, the corporation filed an application challenging the maintainability of the complaint before the district commission, asserting that the petitioner was not a consumer in terms of the relevant provisions of the 1986 Act.

The application of the corporation was allowed by the district commission by an order of June 17, 2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in the state commission, which was allowed by an order passed on February 15, 2011, and the matter was remanded to the district commission for a fresh decision on merits.

The corporation challenged the order of the state commission before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. However, such a revision was ultimately withdrawn on December 4, 2012.

Later, the district commission again dismissed the complaint by an order dated March 4, 2013. Subsequently, the matter travelled through multiple proceedings, culminating in the district commission’s order dated January 18, 2024, granting partial relief and restraining the disconnection of the electricity supply.

The state commission later stayed proceedings by an order dated April 26, 2024. Aggrieved by subsequent developments, the petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court.

Order hit by coram non-judice

Appearing for the cement company, senior advocate Kishore Dutta submitted that any bench of the state consumer commission must comprise at least two members and pointed out that in the present case, the said order was passed by a single-member bench. Therefore, the order is hit by coram non-judice.

Dutta mentioned that the sudden disconnection of electricity has caused incalculable harm to the petitioner, and losses are mounting.

He also emphasised that the order passed by the district commission was one under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and in such view of the matter, the revision petition in which the said order was passed was not maintainable.

Sufficient notice given to company

Representing the corporation, senior advocate S N Mookherjee drew the attention of the Calcutta High Court to the cause list published by the state commission and argued that the official website of the said commission showed the revision as listed for being heard by the relevant bench on February 19, 2026.

He further added that such publication in the list constituted sufficient notice and therefore, it could not be contended that the said order was passed without putting the petitioner on notice.

The revisional application filed by the cement company is very well maintainable since the state commission has the requisite power to entertain any challenge to an order if it finds that the district commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law.