Dismissed

Bijay Kumar Dey v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC3 Feb 2021WP(C)/15419/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a disconnection notice and revised bill. It held that the petition was non-maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the Grievance Redressal Forum for disputed factual questions regarding meter slowness and bill revision.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no disconnection order to be issued while Grievance Redressal Forum is approached.

Bijay Kumar Dey Vs State and Ors. — Consumer Protection | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.15419 of 2011

¶3

Bijay Kumar Dey … Petitioner

¶4

State of Orissa & others.

¶5

ORDER

¶6

03.02.2021 In the wake of the pandemic Covid-19, the case is taken up through V.C.

¶7

Heard Mr. J.K. Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.2 and 3.

¶8

The petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the communication of the Executive Engineer dated 30.04.2011 vide Annexure-4 series and disconnection notice dated 17.05.2011 vide Annexure-6 with further direction to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 to take steps for testing of the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner.

¶9

It is the case of the petitioner that the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner was inspected and tested on 17.01.2011 by the opposite party nos.2 and 3- NESCO, but no intimation was given to him regarding slowness of the meter. After completion of the testing, when the petitioner found the meter to be not-functioning properly, as such, lodged a complaint on 15.02.2011 before the Supply Engineer of the NESCO and sent repeated reminders with regard to the same. However, thereafter on 16.03.2011 and 17.03.2011 again his meter was tested, but

¶10

¶11

no report thereof was furnished to the petitioner. But, on 01.05.2011 after taking the meter reading, his energy bill from 17.01.2011 to 17.03.2011 was revised at -7.21% on the allegation that there was slowness of the meter and demand was raised vide Annexure-4 series. The petitioner raised objection to the same and wanted the testing of the meter in the State Testing Laboratory, Bhubaneswar at the cost of the petitioner, but no decision on the same was taken in spite of the communication and the energy bill for the month of April, 2011 excluding the aforesaid amount, by the petitioner was also refused to be accepted. Ultimately, the petitioner was given a notice for disconnection unless the revised demand charged was paid. Since the action of the opposite party nos.2 and 3-NESCO was contrary to the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶12

However, no Counter Affidavit in this case has been

¶13

filed.

¶14

During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without addressing the grievance of the petitioner as the energy bill has been raised on the ground of slowness of the meter, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3- NESCO, however, submits that such grievance of the petitioner is not redressable in this writ petition as the aforesaid involves a disputed question of fact regarding slowness of the meter. If the petitioner had any grievance on the energy bill raised, the Forum available to him is

¶16

¶17

Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF). But, without approaching the G.R.F. the petitioner filed this writ petition which is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the G.R.F. and the dispute in this case cannot be fairly adjudicated in this writ petition, this Court dispose of this writ petition with an observation that if the petitioner has any grievance against the notice for disconnection, to approach the G.R.F. 6 weeks hence and till he approaches the G.R.F., there shall be no disconnection of the power supply to the premises of the petitioner, if not already disconnected.

¶19

The parties may utilize the copy of this order as per the High Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶20

MRS

Bijay Kumar Dey v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijay Kumar Dey v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Katloon Management and Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Odisha

Kanak Lata Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Om Prakash Ram Vs State

Bhimsen Bhutia Vs State of Odisha

Jhumalata Pradhan Vs Secretary, G.A. Deptt., Odisha

Laiban Harijan Vs State of Odisha