Petition seeking quashing of compensation order was dismissed as infructuous due to prior dismissal of related writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 15522 of 2007.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 4594 of 2007
05.01.2016
Heard Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Jena, learned counse
l for opposite party no.2
The petitioner files this application seeking to quash the judgment dated 31.01.2007 vid
e Annexure-5 passed by the Grievance Redressal Forum, Cuttack in C.C. Case No. AED/1 of 2007 d
irecting to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per day for the period from 01.10.2006 to
31.12.2006 when the electricity connection was given.
Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the consumer-opposite par
ty no.2 being complainant also moved the learned Ombudsman against very same judgment of GRF d
ated 31.01.2007 in Annexure-5 for award compensation form the date she claims i.e. the date of
application 25.04.2006 not from 01.10.2006. At best she is entitled to get compensation w.e.f
. 24.05.2006 i.e. one month after the application not from 01.10.2006 as directed by GRF. Acco
rdingly, the Ombudsman held that the licensee is liable to pay compensation for the period fro
m 18.06.2006 to 22.12.2006 @ Rs.100 per day as per the provision of Regulation-5 of Schedule-I
II of Regulation, 2004. Assailing the said award of Ombudsman dated 15.05.2002 the petitioner
had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15522 of 2007 which has already been dismisse
d by this Court vide judgment dated 09.01.2008.
Mr. B. Jena, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 states that in view of the dismissa
l of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15522 of 2007 on 09.01.2008,
this writ petition has become infructuous.
Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going thr
ough the records, since the writ petition preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15522 of
2007 has already been dismissed by this Court, this writ petition has become infructuous. Acco
rdingly, the same is dismissed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(C) No. 15522 of 2007Referred¶3
Petitioner
Opposite party no.2
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court