Dismissed

Executive Engineer(Elect) Aed-Ii, Aska v. Grievance Redressal Forum, Berhampur

Orissa HC17 Sept 2021WP(C)/8329/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ petition challenging non-compliance with orders of GRF and Ombudsman regarding billing dispute and demand charge revision. Court found petitioner deliberately delayed compliance and found no case for interference as orders caused no grave prejudice. Writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of GRF and Ombudsman maintained without order as to costs.

Executive Engineer(Elect) Aed-Ii, Aska Vs Grievance… — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.8329 of 2021

¶3

Executive Engineer (Elect) AED-II, …. Petitioner ASKA

¶4

Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Grievance Redressal Forum, …. Opposite Parties Berhampur and Others

None

Order No.

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

¶11

ORDER 17.09.2021

¶12

The Executive Engineer (Electrical), Electrical Division, AEDII, Southco Utility (now TPSODL), Aska, Ganjam has filed the present writ petition questioning the order dated 18^th May, 2020 passed by the learned Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF), Berhampur in GRF Case No.323 of 2019 as well as the Judgment and Award dated 13^th November, 2020 passed by the learned Ombudsman-II in Consumer Representation Case No.OM (II) (S)04 of 2020.

¶13

The background facts of the case are that Opposite Party No.3 entered into an agreement with Southco Ltd. on 18^th April, 2008 for supply of power to the unit of C.D. 88.89 KVA = 80 KW for the purpose of its aluminum industry. It is stated that Opposite Party No.3 Consumer was under the MIND (HT) category from 14^th October, 2008 onwards.

¶14

Page 1 of 5

¶15

On 9^th December 2019 the Opposite Party No.3 preferred a complaint before the GRF, Berhampur raising a billing dispute. It was stated that the monthly minimum charges (MMC) claimed from the consumer by the Petitioner from the date of commencement of supply was different from the agreed load. It was claimed that the industry was drawing much less than the agreed load. When the consumer inquired, he told that the charges were as per the MD recorded in the static meter. A differential amount of Rs.91,250/- was charged for the period April, 2012 till August 2012, in the month of April, 2013 without serving any notice.

¶16

A reply was filed by the present Petitioner to the complaint pointing out that the consumer was billed on of LT industrial (M) supply basis from October, 2008 to October, 2009 i.e. (1x80) + 79x50) = 4030.00, then from November, 2009 to May 2011 on HT Industrial (M) supply basis, i.e. 80x50 = Rs.4000/-, then from June 2011 to March, 2012 on HT industrial (M) Supply basis, i.e. (80x150) = Rs.13350.00.

¶17

The GRF in its order dated 18^th May, 2020 noted that the consumer failed to apply for reduction of the contracted demand. The cost of demand charges was intended to meet the component of fixed incurred in the system for meeting the consumer load and also to recover the expenses on maintenance of meter, meter reading, preparation of bills, delivery of bills, collection of revenue and maintenance of customer accounts etc. It was observed that if the consumer had applied for reduction of the load, the problem

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

may have been resolved. Accordingly, it was held that the claim of revision of the demand charges from the date of power supply was not maintainable.

¶20

Nevertheless in view of Regulation 64 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code 2004 along with the Regulation 119 of 2019 Code read with para 470 of tariff order for Financial year 2017-18 the following directions were issued:

¶21

“1. To revise the energy charge bill as per available dump report in respect of demand charges.

¶22

MD recorded month wise to be taken by reset manually or immediately replace the manual reset static meter to an auto reset static meter for correct billing as per prevailing tariff.”

¶23

Further the complaint/consumer was directed to execute a fresh agreement as per requirement. When no action was taken on the above directions, the consumer i.e. Opposite Party No.3 approached the Ombudsman with a Consumer Representation Case No.OM (II)(S) 04 of 2020. The Ombudsman attempted the conciliation between the parties and it was informed by the Petitioner that the present Petitioner has initially taken up the matter with the higher authorities for implementation of the directions of the GRF. The Ombudsman examined the matter again. It was noted that the present Petitioner had by a letter dated 27^th October, 2020 intimated that the approval of the General Manager (Commerce), Southco Utility, Berhampur had been sought for implementation of the GRF’s order. In that view of the matter, the following directions were issued:

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

“1. The respondent is directed to implement the aforesaid order dt. 18.05.2020 in Case No.323/2019 of the learned GRF, Berhampur immediately within 15 days from the date of this order and file compliance within 30 days before this Authority.

¶26

Non-compliance of the said order by the respondent within the aforesaid stipulated time, the petitioner may approach the Hon’ble OERC under Section 142 of the Electricity Act 2003.”

¶27

In response to a query by the Court, learned counsel for the Petitioner candidly stated that neither the order of the GRF nor the order of the Ombudsman has been complied with by the Petitioner till date. The order of the Ombudsman hadd to be complied with within 15 days i.e. by 28^th November, 2020. Long after the expiry of that period, on 2^nd March 2021, the present petition was filed. The petition was taken up for the first time today, more than six months thereafter. Effectively, therefore, since 28^th November, 2020 no attempt has been made by the Petitioner to comply with either order despite there being no stay on their implementation. The alternative dispute resolution mechanism of the GRF, followed by an appeal to the Ombudsman, was for the purpose of ensuring expeditious disposal of the disputes between the consumer and the distribution company. That purpose has been totally frustrated by the Petitioner.

¶28

Be that as it may, on merits too, the Court finds that the impugned orders are unlikely to cause any grave prejudice to the Petitioner. It has only been asked to implement the order of GRF

¶29

Page 4 of 5

¶30

which in turn asked it to revise energy charge bill “as per available dump report in respect of demand charges”. Replacing the manual reset static meter to an auto reset static meter also cannot be said to cause any prejudice to the Petitioner. Consequently, no case is made for interference.

¶31

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs.

¶32

S.K. Jena/P.A.

¶33

(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(B.P. Routray)
Judge

¶34

Page 5 of 5

Executive Engineer(Elect) Aed-Ii, Aska v. Grievance Redressal Forum, Berhampur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Executive Engineer(Elect) Aed-Ii, Aska v. Grievance Redressal Forum, Berhampur

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

Urban Co-Op.Bank Ltd. Vs P.O.,Labour Court

Janardan Naik Vs State and Ors.

Sk.Hyder Vs State

Shyam Sundar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Muslim Mian Vs Collector, Sundargarh

State of Odisha Vs Shrikrishna Behera