🚨 Beyond Closure: Phantom Bill in UPPCL Mirzapur and the Failures of Public Grievance Redressal

Registration Number: GOVUP/E/2025/0130616 Date of Receipt: 15/11/2025 Complainant: Yogi M. P. Singh (On behalf of Ms. Kalawati Devi, Acct No. 8596072000) This case relates to a Phantom Bill in UPPCL Mirzapur.

The fundamental purpose of any public grievance system is to offer citizens a timely, transparent, and effective mechanism. It allows them to seek redressal against deficiencies in government services. The recent developments concerning electricity consumer Ms. Kalawati Devi, championed by complainant Yogi M. P. Singh, show a worrying pattern. The system is being manipulated to achieve a superficial closure. This does not lead to a substantive resolution.

This case, now escalated under the new registration number GOVUP/E/2025/0130616, moves beyond a simple billing dispute. It has become a crucial test of administrative accountability. It exposes deep-seated issues of bureaucratic procrastination. Authorities show non-compliance with service standards and fail to address consumer rights guaranteed under statutory codes. The core facts include a sudden and inexplicable jump in the electricity bill from ₹242 to an exorbitant ₹8,128. The response from the relevant authorities was utterly inadequate.

---

I. The Anatomy of a Defective Disposal: IGRS No. 60000250241115

The initial grievance was submitted on October 9, 2025. It detailed not only the impossible bill amount but also the misconduct of the Subdivisional Officer (SDO), Chhanabe. The officer allegedly refused to make a correction. They imposed an unlawful precondition for resolving a clear departmental error: the new smart meter installation. (Phantom Bill in UPPCL Mirzapur)

The first complaint was closed on November 13, 2025. This was based on a disposal report dated November 7, 2025, from the Executive Engineer (EE), Shri Manish Kumar Srivastava. This closure, as detailed in the current grievance, is fundamentally flawed and constitutes a second, equally serious deficiency in service.

A. Non-Redressal of the Core Financial Issue (Phantom Bill in UPPCL Mirzapur)

The most pressing concern for the consumer is the ₹8,128 bill, which carries the threat of punitive action, including disconnection. The EE’s disposal report utterly failed to address this. It did not order the immediate suspension of the disputed bill. Instead, it merely stated that the bill “will be revised one month after a meter is installed.”

This response is a bureaucratic dodge. It acknowledges that the bill is currently inaccurate. This is confirmed by the lack of a meter. However, it provides zero immediate relief. The consumer remains under the threat of an illegal, inflated demand for an indefinite period. This continues while the department performs a task (meter installation) that it was already required to do. This approach violates the principles of natural justice. These principles dictate that a valid complaint must lead to a valid, present-day remedy.

B. Procrastination and Last-Hour Action

The timeline shows a clear case of slow-moving bureaucracy. The complainant filed the complaint on October 9, 2025. The team completed the report on the issue on November 7, 2025. During this nearly one-month period, the Executive Engineer’s office appears to have stalled the matter. The only real action noted in the report is the sending of Office Letter No. 1326 on November 7, 2025. This happened in the final hours before the team resolved the complaint. Its purpose was to start the meter installation process. (Phantom Bill in UPPCL Mirzapur)

The complainant rightly points out that departmental personnel acted only at the “last hour of the redress of the grievance”. Their action was merely to create a paper trail for closure. They made no sincere effort to resolve the issue. The disposal is therefore not a solution. It is merely documentation of the Exchange of communication in the department. It is designed to clear the complaint from the dashboard.

C. Confirmation of Billing Error (Phantom Bill in UPPCL Mirzapur)

The disposal report reveals a crucial admission: “A meter has not been installed on connection no. 8596072000.” This line confirms the complainant’s original assertion. The ₹8,128 bill was not based on actual consumption. Instead, it was due to “a prima facie billing error”. The error likely arose because the estimated or average consumption figures were vastly inconsistent with the consumer’s established payment history. The last payment was ₹242.

If the department acknowledges the absence of a meter, it logically confirms the bill’s inaccuracy. Yet, the department refuses to immediately correct it. They choose to link the correction to a future administrative process (meter installation). This is a process they themselves have failed to execute in a timely manner.

---

II. Accountability Deficit: Silence on Misconduct and Delay

The initial grievance was not solely about the bill. It was also about the misconduct and abuse of authority by the SDO, Chhanabe. The SDO allegedly refused to rectify the bill. He then imposed the new meter as an unlawful precondition for service, which constituted a severe breach of public duty. (Phantom Bill in UPPCL Mirzapur)

The EE’s disposal report is completely silent on this critical element.

A. The Unaddressed SDO Misconduct

The failure even to mention the SDO’s alleged unprofessional behavior is evident. The department fails to initiate an inquiry. This neglect suggests that the department prioritizes the protection of its officers over the rights of the consumer. This ulterior motive is one of the most concerning aspects of the entire episode. A grievance redressal system must hold officials accountable for poor conduct. If the system ignores this request, it allows the abuse of authority to continue unchecked.

B. The EE’s Own Accountability

Furthermore, the new grievance correctly raises the question of accountability for the Executive Engineer, Shri Manish Kumar Srivastava, himself. His disposal report shows a one-month delay in a simple administrative task. It also includes the issuance of a defective disposal report that provided no genuine relief.

The Head of Division (EE) submits a report that clearly fails to address the main complaint. It ignores claims of wrongdoing. It also records a month of no action. This shows a serious failure in supervision and following service delivery standards. The complainant’s request for an explanation is necessary. The question arises: why should the EE not face disciplinary action? This is completely fair and important for establishing accountability within the department.

---

III. The Path Forward: Demanding Time-Bound and Concrete Relief (Phantom Bill in UPPCL Mirzapur)

The new grievance (GOVUP/E/2025/0130616) represents a necessary escalation. It seeks to overcome the deliberate inertia of the local power division by appealing directly to the Chief Minister’s Secretariat. The Prayer for Immediate and Concrete Relief outlines a clear, time-bound roadmap that, if followed, will genuinely redress the consumer’s plight:

1. Immediate Suspension and Provisional Billing (7 Days): Suspend the ₹8,128 bill immediately. Issue a provisional bill for ₹242 right away. This action removes the illegal pressure against Ms Kalawati Devi.
2. Time-Bound Meter Installation (7 Days): Direct the EE to install the meter within one week. This will address the bureaucratic delay and lay the foundation for accurate future billing.
3. Mandatory Disciplinary Inquiry: Start a formal, documented investigation into the SDO’s wrongdoing. This action sends a clear message. We will not accept any misuse of power. This applies regardless of the officer’s position or rank.
4. Accountability from the Top: Requiring the EE to explain his one-month delay compels senior management. They must acknowledge and justify the poor quality of the initial disposal.

The integrity of public authority is under a cloud

The complainant’s feeling is clear. “There is no guarantee they will continue with the matter. This is true even after submitting the report and closing the case,” the complainant noted. This shows the resulting mistrust. It happens when public workers treat complaint resolution as just a task to clear their workload.

This case is no longer just about an inflated bill. It alert. They must watch out for “hidden motives” and laziness within lower departments. The state must take clear, immediate, and serious action against underperforming officials. Only then can it ensure proper responses to consumer complaints. This will restore trust in the effectiveness of its own administrative solutions. The public is watching closely. They are focused on the Chief Minister’s Office. Will the second complaint finally get justice? (Phantom Bill in UPPCL Mirzapur)

Yogi government is mute spectator of arbitrary electricity bills and corruption in the office of EDD II Mirzapur as failed to control anarchy

Theft of electricity is quite rampant but no action by concerned EE EDD II