Court declines to interfere in ₹63 lakh electricity bill dispute of Peer Panchal Educational Trust, refers matter to competent authority for decision under law
Diplomat Correspondent
Jammu :DD, The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has directed the Power Development Department to decide within six weeks the representation filed by Khalid Jahangir Malik, son of former minister and senior National Conference leader Abdul Ghani Malik, regarding a disputed electricity bill of over ₹63 lakh related to Peer Panchal Educational Trust, Kote Bhalwal, Jammu.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal of the Jammu Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh passed the order on October 14, 2025, while hearing WP(C) No. 2855/2025, filed by Khalid Jahangir Malik, resident of Sarh Bagga, Tehsil Mahore, District Reasi.
The petitioner had approached the court seeking quashing of a notice dated July 17, 2025, issued under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the impugned electricity bill amounting to ₹63,67,516, claiming that the same was arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable. He further sought directions for restoration of power supply to the premises of Peer Panchal Educational Trust and recalculation of the bill based on the sanctioned load of 4000 watts, along with waiver of penalties and interest under the amnesty scheme.
The court observed that the petitioner had earlier approached the court in WP(C) No. 2982/2024 challenging a similar bill of ₹56.48 lakh, but the petition was dismissed on December 24, 2024, on the ground that such billing disputes must be resolved under the Electricity Act, 2003, through the competent authority designated under the Act.
Despite that order, the petitioner filed a fresh writ petition stating that he had already submitted a representation before the Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE), JPDCL, Janipur-II Sub-Division on December 30, 2024, but no action had been taken so far.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would be satisfied if the court directed the concerned officer to decide his representation within a specific time. The counsel for the Power Department did not object to such a direction.
Accordingly, the court, without commenting on the maintainability of the petition, disposed of it at the threshold, directing Respondent No. 4 (AEE) to decide the petitioner’s case pending before him within six weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order and related documents, strictly in accordance with law.
The court also allowed the petitioner to produce any additional documents to assist in the adjudication of the matter.
The writ petition, along with connected applications, was thus disposed of, and the order was authenticated by Mihul Singh on October 16, 2025.DD