Dismissed

Pradeep Kumar Choudhury v. Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bbsr

Orissa HC13 Mar 2023WP(C)/2226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the OERC order dropping a dispute regarding electricity bills. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding the OERC reasoning just and propalReferred to the Electricity Supply Code for future load reduction requests.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. Petitioners granted liberty to follow appropriate procedure for reduction of contracted load.

Pradeep Kumar Choudhury Vs Orissa Electricity Regulatory… — Consumer Protection | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2226 of 2022

¶3

Pradeep Kumar Choudhury & another …. Petitioners Mr.B. Tripathy, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission, BBSR & others

¶6

…. Opp.parties

¶7

Mr.S. Satyakam, Advocate for O.P.No.1 Mr.D.Ray, Advocate for O.P.Nos.2 to 4

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Order No. 13.03.2023

¶12

7 . 1. The petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the learned Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bhubaneswar, in Case No. 60 of 2020 filed under section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by which the case filed by the present petitioner before the OERC was dropped.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.

¶14

Petition involves the following prayer :

¶15

“It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue Rule Nissi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the orders passed by them under Annexure-1, i.e., order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the opp.party no.1, Annexure-10 (series) i.e., the Bills issued by the opp.parties, & Annexure-12 i.e., the letter no.1048(3) dated 07.09.2020 passed by opp.party no.2-AGM-cum-Executive Engineer shall not be quashed, if the opp.parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said rule may be made absolute and the writ petition may be allowed in favour of the petitioners directing the opposite parties to revise the bills vide Annexure-10 (series) and to quash the order vide Annexure-1 & Annexure-12 passed by the OERC and the opposite party no.2 respectively and would be pleased to direct the opposite party to pay interest on the amount of Rs.6,63,212/- adjusted in the

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

bill till date and award adequate compensation or to pass any other appropriate order/orders as may deem fit and proper in the eye of law.”

¶18

From the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is apparent that the petitioners are interested in so far as their claim on compensation as well as interest on the amount of Rs.6,63,212/- credited/adjusted in the electricity energy bill raised by Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.

¶19

The case has chequered history. Raising some dispute, involving bill for the period from 2007 to 2014, a dispute was raised before the Grievance Redressal Forum. The dispute was resolved by an order of the GRF partially allowing the claim of the petitioners and thereby directing the opposite parties to serve the revised bill in the manner indicated therein within fifteen days of the date of order. There was also direction for submitting compliance report within fifteen days after execution of the order. It appears that the petitioners being not satisfied with the action of the authority, raised a dispute before the learned Ombudsman registered as Consumer Representation Case No. OM(I)-52 of 2015. This proceeding was decided on contest vide Annexure-5 giving the following direction :

¶20

“ Order/Award

¶21

In view of the observation made, the order of GRP dated 22.09.2015 is set aside. The meter initially declared as defective by MRT team on two occasion i.e., 20.06.2009 and 25.08.2014, but the stands taken by the respondent the meter was tested and find ok at MRT laboratory in absence of the Complainant is not acceptable. The Respondent is directed to recast the bill of the Consumer from April, 2007 to July, 2014 on the 3 months average meter reading of the meter bearing Sl.No.CSC 24184 re-commissioned on 12.11.2014 with meter reading 175881.4. The meter is

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

also found correct when rechecked with a parallel meter from 07.10.2015 to 13.10.2015 as per direction of his Forum in presence of the Complainant. From September, 2014 onwards the billing is to be made on actual maximum demand and reading available with the Respondent.

¶25

“In pursuance to Regulation 10(6) of OERC (GRF & Ombudsman) Regulation 2004 (Chapter-3), the Petitioner is required to issue letter of acceptance within 15 days the Award/Order is in full and final settlement of his claim so that the Respondent shall comply the settlement order of the Ombudsman within the time limit as specified in Para above.”

¶26

The case is disposed of and closed.”

¶27

There is no dispute at the Bar that the order of the Ombudsman-I has not been challenged by any of the parties. In the meantime, pursuant to the direction vide Annexure-5 a fresh bill has been raised by the authority concerned in terms of the order of the Ombudsman-1, and finally observing that after revision an amount of Rs.6,63,212/-will be credited in the petitioners electricity bill in the month of February, 2015 and net amount payable to CESU has been determined as Rs.4,51,698/-. Communication was made by letter dated 26.02.2016 with the statement of calculation. It is apparent that after the raising of the fresh bill with the aforesaid communication vide Annexure-6, the petitioners started complaining vide Annexure-5. Petitioners after sending number of representations which did not elicit any approached the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission wherein the proceeding was registered as Case No.60 of 2020. The matter was contested and decided finally declining the relief claimed by the petitioners.

¶28

Having heard submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as response of the learned counsel for the opposite parties and taking into consideration the materials available on record

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

// 4 //

¶31

especially, the pleadings before the OERC, Ombudsman as well as GRF, it is apparent that none of the parties to the present lis ever challenged the order dated 19.12.2015 (Annexure-5) passed by the Ombudsman-I. It is also not disputed that Annexure-6 is a consequence of the order passed by the learned Ombudsman.

¶32

In the ultimate analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the reasonings given by the learned OERC are just and proper, there being no error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is observed that the petitioners herein shall have the liberty as granted by the learned OERC while disposing of the case, i.e., if the petitioners want further reduction of any load, i.e., contracted load for consumption of electricity, they shall have the liberty to follow appropriate procedure in accordance with law particularly, the Electricity Supply Code, 2019 if not already done.

¶34

………………………
(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
………………………
(M.S.Sahoo)
Judge

¶35

dutta/Gs

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Pradeep Kumar Choudhury v. Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Choudhury v. Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bbsr

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

Prabhat Kumar Sahoo Vs Rural Labour Inspector-Cum-Inspector, Jajpur

Sasanka Sekhar Sahoo Vs Ombudsman-Ii

Rare Earth Employees Union Vs Labour Commnr-Cum-Registrar Trade Union