Partly allowed

Maharaja Minerals v. Ombudsman-Iinesco

Orissa HC30 Jul 2019WP(C)/9464/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court disposed of this writ petition challenging orders under the Ombudsman and Grievance Redressal Forum regarding industrial power billing. The Court directed the opposite party to implement the earlier Forum order, allowing the petitioner to apply for an enhanced load of 95 KW.

What did the court decide?

The opposite party was directed to implement the order of the GRF, NESCO, considering the petitioner's application to enhance the contract demand from 65 KW to 95 KW.

Maharaja Minerals Vs Ombudsman-Iinesco — Consumer Protection | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 9464 of 2009

¶2

30.07.2019

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶4

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 02.05.2009 (Annexure-1) passed in Consumer Representation Case No.OM-II(N)-07 of 2009 by the Ombudsman-II, Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission in which the order dated 12.01.2009 of the Grievance Redressal Forum, NESCO, Jajpur Road in Case No.318 of 2008 has been affirmed.

¶5

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Grievance Redressal Forum, NESCO, Jajpur Road passed an appropriate order on 12.01.2009, which has subsequently been affirmed. The GRF, NESCO, while considering the matter, has stated as under:

¶6

“xx xx xx

¶7

Hence contract demand for a connected load below 110 KVA shall be same as the connected load. In the applicant company case the connected load is more than the contract demand for which the drawal is more than 65KW and max 118.26 KW has been recorded in the month of November 2006. Regarding technical fault and that a transformer of 100 KVA is not capable of taking more loan than its capacity is denied by this Forum. The meter has been tested by qualified persons in the presence of the petitioner. A distribution transformer may take 150% balance load for some time considering its design aspect. It is therefore, obvious that the industry has more load than its contact demand.

¶8

The applicant company have drawn power beyond their contact demand and liable to pay the bill in large industry from the date of drawal i.e. August 2006 with due formalities as per regulation. But as seen the opposite party have charged bill in large industry from December 2006 when the demand was not in large

¶9

-2-

¶10

industry, without disconnecting power supply and terminating the agreement giving two months notice in writing as the initial period of power supply was over. The opposite party have taken lineate view to the complainant.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

On perusal of document and written statements by both the parties and after hearing, the GRF is of the opinion that billing in large industry holds goods.

¶13

In order to remain in medium industry the petitioner company is directed to apply for fresh enhanced load with undertaking.”

¶14

The same view has been affirmed by the OMBUDSMAN-II in its order which is impugned in this writ petition.

¶15

It appears that pursuant to the order dated 12.01.2009, the petitioner approached the authority by its letter dated 12.02.2009 (Annexure-5) to enhance the contract demand from 65 KW to 95 KW.

¶16

In that view of the matter, the opposite party No.2-Executive Engineer (Electrical) is directed to implement the order of GRF, NESCO, Jajpur Road considering the application of the petitioner dated 12.02.2009 (Annexure-5).

¶17

The writ petition stands disposed of to the extent indicated above. All connected Misc. Cases/I.As. are also disposed of.

¶18

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶19

.…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice

¶20

…………………..……… ( K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶21

SKJ

Maharaja Minerals v. Ombudsman-Iinesco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharaja Minerals v. Ombudsman-Iinesco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoranjan Harichand Vs State

Debendra Bhujbal Vs Union of India

Brig.Retdhemanta Vs Project Director

Gadadhar Panda Vs Chakradhar Panda

Khageswar Parida Vs Bansidhar Parida

Bhimsen Das Vs Comnr.Consolidation