Writ petition by an electricity supply company challenging an order directing it to pay 50% of arrear dues due to equal negligence. The court agreed with the lower authority, finding nothing remains to be decided, and disposed of the petition.
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. 3813 of 2009
2.1 The opposite party No.3-M/s Aryan Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. executed an agreement on 23.04.2005 for supply of power for a contract demand of 1150 KVA for a period of six months from the date of supply from 01.03.2006 till 31.09.2006 and thereafter 3000 KVA with effect from 01.09.2006. However, inadvertently by clerical error, the bill on contract demand of 1150 KVA was made till 31.07.2007. On detection of such error, the bill was made with a contract demand of 3000 KVA from August, 2007. The opposite party No.3 paid the bill without any objection and prejudice. Subsequently, the differential bill on contract demand of 3000 KVA of Rs.32,63,541/- was raised for the period from
2
September, 2006 to July, 2007. Thereafter, opposite party No.3 applied for reduction vide their letter dated 23.11.2007 after complying all the requirements, the application was considered and the contract demand was reduced to 1500 KVA with effect from 01.01.2008. Consequently, amended agreement was executed on 25.06.2008.
2.2 Being aggrieved opposite party No.3 approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.13193 of 2007, which was disposed of by order dated 25.02.2008 giving liberty to opposite party No.3 to approach the Grievance Redressal Forum with observation that if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh without prejudice to the contention, the power supply shall continue on payment of monthly electricity charges as per the actual consumption. The deposit of Rs.5.00 lakh would be over and above the sum of Rs.5.00 lakh deposited earlier.
2.3 The Grievance Redressal Forum by order dated 31.05.2008 (Annexure-4) disposed of the representation of opposite party No.3 holding that the opposite party No.3 is liable to pay the differential amount till July, 2007 and demand charges on 3000 KVA till the reduction of contract demand.
2.4 The opposite party No.3 then preferred CR Case No.8 of 2008 against the order dated 31.05.2008 of the Grievance Redressal Forum before opposite party No.1-Ombudsman-II.
3
4.1 The petition may be revived within thirty days, in case of difficulty.
.…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice
…………………..……… (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
ss
Electricity Supply Company (unnamed)
Opposite Party No.2
M/s Aryan Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd.
K.S. Jhaveri
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
