Common order dismissing two appeals challenging the O.E.R.C.'s decision to quash a penal bill for electricity theft. The court found the Regulatory Commission's findings sustainable based on record materials and dismissed the appeals.
Both F.A.O. No.33 of 2004 and F.A.O. No.34 of 2004 were dismissed.
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.
FAO No.33 of 2004
12. 25.07.2019 FAO No.33 of 2004 & FAO No.34 of 2004
Heard Shri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants in F.A.O. No.33 of 2004 and Shri R.N. Acharya, learned counsel for the appellants in F.A.O. No.34 of 2004, Shri S.N. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1.
For the common fact and issue involved in both the cases, this Court on consent of parties took up both the proceedings together in a common hearing and decides the same by this common order.
The F.A.O No.33 of 2004 involves a challenge to the order dated 30.12.2003 passed by the O.E.R.C., Bhubaneswar in Case no.24/2003, whereas the F.A.O. No.34 of 2004 involves a challenge to the order dated 30.12.2003 passed by the O.E.R.C., Bhubaneswar in O.E.R.C. Case no.23 of 2003.
Factual background involved in the case is that on 20.10.1994 the respondent no.2 entered into an agreement for supply of electrical energy with the appellants for a contract demand of 90KW. On 27.11.2001 an inspection/verification in the factory of the respondent no.2 was conducted for using unauthorized electricity by-passing the meter. On 28.11.2001 an F.I.R was lodged against the respondent and as a consequence power supply was also disconnected. On 29.11.2001 a show cause notice was issued to the respondent no.2 as to why penal bill shall not be imposed as per Clause 105 of the Code. On 18.12.2001 a Penal bill to the tune of Rs.5,74,962.80/- was imposed on the respondent no.2. On 27.12.2001 a sum of Rs.1,83,538/-
2
was deposited by the respondent no.2 as down payment for availing power supply. On 29.12.2001 after changing the incoming cable to the ice factory of the respondent no.2 electric supply was restored. The respondent no.2 in absence of payment of the installment amount filed Consumer Dispute Case No.10 of 2002 before the State Consumer Commission Challenging the penal bill and the disconnection of electric line. On 8.08.2002 the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission disposed of the dispute case with a direction to the respondent no.2 to approach he competent authority. Pending disposal of the dispute case before the State Consumer Commission on 25.06.2002 & 26.06.2002, verification was made in the ice factory of the respondent no.2 and it was found the meter to have been tampered. The respondent no.2 approached the Bijuli Adalat for redressal of his grievance. The Bijuli Adalat upheld the penal bill imposed against the respondent no.2. Challenging the order of the Bijuli Adalat the respondent no.2 filed case no.23 of 2003 and no.24 of 2003 before the OERC, Bhubaneswar. On 30.12.2003 O.E.R.C., Bhubaneswar respondent no.1 has quashed the penal bill imposed on the respondent no.2 vide its order dated 30.12.2003, giving rise to file both the appeals.
Ayas
Taking this Court to the grounds of challenge, Shri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that finding given by the respondent no.1 in paragraph no.10 of the impugned order relating to nondisclosure of the fate of the criminal case filed against the respondent no.2 is illegal and perverse and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also further contended that finding
3
given by the respondent no.1 in paragraph no.11 of the impugned order relating to the photograph relied by the appellant showing unauthorized use of the electricity is also wrong and illegal.
Shri Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1, on the other hand, though did not dispute the incident taking place as narrated hereinabove but while disputing that there is no theft of power by the respondent no.2, taking this Court to the discussions made in the impugned order and in an attempt to justify the order passed by the Bijuli Adalat as well as the Regulatory Commission impugned herein submitted that for the disclosures made therein and the findings arrived at by the authority, there is no infirmity in the same and it is, in the above circumstances, Shri Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1 claimed dismissal of both the appeals.
Considering the rival contentions of the parties and taking into account the grounds raised herein by the learned counsel for the appellants involving both the Appeals, this Court going through the order vide Annexure-7 finds, there has been threadbare discussion on the case of the parties by the authority resulting the concrete finding by the O.E.R.C., Bhubaneswar again based on the pleadings of the parties and the materials available on record. This Court accordingly finds, there is no infirmity in the impugned order requiring any interference in the same. In the result, this Court dismisses both the appeals.
…….…………………
(Biswanath Rath, J.)
4
Appellants (unnamed in text)
Respondent no.1 (O.E.R.C., Bhubaneswar)
Respondent no.2 (Consumer/Ice factory operator)
Biswanath Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
