Partly allowed

Chief Executive Officer, Tpwodl v. Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Service, Sambalpur

Orissa HC13 Feb 2023WP(C)/25191/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa interfered with the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, remanding the matter for fresh disposal. The Court held that the Lok Adalat could not reduce the bill without documentary evidence of a complaint regarding defective metering from the opposite party.

What did the court decide?

Matter remitted to the Permanent Lok Adalat for fresh disposal by giving both parties opportunity of hearing within three months.

Chief Executive Officer, Tpwodl Vs Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Service, Sambalpur — Orissa HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.25191 of 2022

¶3

Chief Executive Officer, TPWODL, Sambalpur & Ors.

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Sambalpur & Anr.

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

13.02.2023

Order No

11. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶13

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. S.A.K. Dora, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 2.

¶14

3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Sambalpur in PLA Case No. 01 of 2021 dtd.05.05.2022.

¶15

4. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that without having any document produced by the O.P. No. 2, learned Lok Adalat while disposing the matter, reduced the bill amount to the extent of 50% without any reason and basis. It is contended that no document whatsoever has been filed by the Opp. Party No. 2 showing that he had ever filed any complaint with regard to illegal raising of bill because of the defective meter.

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

5. Even though opportunity was given by this Court to the learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 2 to produce any document showing that he had ever made any complaint with regard to illegal raising of bill, but it is contended that no written complaint was ever made and only oral complaint was made before the Authority. Since at no point of time the Opp. Party No. 2 has raised his grievance with regard to illegal raising of bill by submitting a detailed application, it is the view of this Court that in absence of such document, learned Lok Adalat should not have reduced the bill amount to the extent of 50%.

¶18

6. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order dt.05.05.2022, passed in PLA Case No. 05 of 2021 under Annexure-6. While interfering with the same, remits the matter to the learned Lok Adalat for fresh disposal. Learned Lok Adalat shall do well to dispose of the matter afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to both the Parties and pass appropriate order within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶19

7. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶21

Sneha

¶22

Page 2 of 2

Chief Executive Officer, Tpwodl v. Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Service, Sambalpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Executive Officer, Tpwodl v. Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Service, Sambalpur

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

Manager,Legal,M/S.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Prasanta Kandi

The Manager, Legal, M/S. Bajaj Allianz G.I.Co. Ltd. Vs Ramesh Chandra Mohanty

Prabhakar Patra Vs Hrusikesh Panda

Amar Bilas Mohanty Vs Santosh Ku.Mohanty

Ritanjali Padhan Vs State of Odisha

Balmiki Dash Vs State of Odisha