Dismissed

The Executive Engineer Electrical, Nesco Utility v. M/S. Harekrishna Rice Processing and Exports

Orissa HC20 Mar 2023WP(C)/7858/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Ombudsman's order enforcing a GRF directive. The Court found the petition unsustainable and non-maintainable due to the clear undertaking recorded by the respondent to implement the said directive.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition held not maintainable and stands dismissed.

The Executive Engineer Electrical… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) NO.7858 OF 2021

¶2

Executive Engineer, Electrical (TPNODL), Jajpur

…. Petitioner

Mr.S.C.Dash, Adv.

-versus-

M/s.Harekrishna Rice Processing and Exports & ors.

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr.L.K.Maharana, Adv.

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO

¶10

ORDER 20.3.2023

¶11

Order I.A.NO.3634 OF 2023 No. 1. Heard Mr.S.C.Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.L.K.Maharana, learned counsel appearing for the contesting O.P.1 by way of Caveat Petition.

¶12

¶13

There is filing of this Interlocutory Application for there is change in the positioning of the Petitioner in the meantime. Considering the submissions of the respective Parties and finding there is genuine requirement, this Court allows the Application thereby allowing the Petitioner to make handwriting endorsement in the Cause Title at the Petitioner side in Court itself.

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

3. I.A. stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

¶18

(M.S.Sahoo) Judge

¶19

WP(C) NO.7858 OF 2021

¶20

08. 1. The Writ Petition involves the following prayer :-

¶21

“The Petitioner, therefore, humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit the Writ Petition, issue a Rule NISI calling upon the Opp.Party No.1 to show cause as to why the Writ Petition shall not be allowed and in the event the said Opp.Party fails to show cause or shows insufficient cause, your Lordship, upon hearing, be pleased to make the ‘Rule’ absolute and allow the Writ Petition after quashing the impugned orders, vide Annexure-5 and 8 passed respectively by the GRF, Jajpur Road in C.C. No.15 of 2020 as well as by the Ombudsman in C.R. Case No.25/2020 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, without jurisdiction and barred by law of limitation..”

¶22

From the prayer in the Writ Petition, it appears, the

¶23

Petitioner while challenging the order of the G.R.F. dated 4.12.2020

¶24

passed in Consumer Complaint No.15 of 2020, vide Annexure-5 also challenges the order of the Ombudsman dated 11.1.2021 passed

¶25

in C.R. Case No.OM(II) N-25 of 2020, vide Annexure-8.

¶26

The Writ Petition was filed on 26.2.2021. In the meantime,

¶27

there is a change in the ownership of the Petitioner-Establishment.

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

// 3 //

¶30

This matter was taken up first on 9.3.2021 and then again on 15.3.2021 thereafter on 22.3.2021 and 19.4.2021. On all these dates the matter was adjourned mostly on the request of Mr.S.C.Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner, who was not ready even to argue the matter on admission. The matter did not come in the List for several dates. Ultimately, it came on 16.3.2023 and thereafter adjourned to today. The matter is taken up today for final hearing.

¶31

There is no dispute at the Bar that Annexure-5 is a disposal order by the G.R.F. on a contentious issue raised by the contesting O.P.1 herein also in the involvement of the Petitioner herein. There is also no dispute at the Bar that Annexure-5 did not come to be challenged until and unless, there is passing of order by the Ombudsman in C.R. Case No.OM(II) N-25 of 2020, the contesting O.P. seeking direction for compliance of the G.R.F. order involved herein disposed of recording undertaking of the Authorised Officer appearing for the contesting O.P. therein, the Petitioner herein to work out the direction of the G.R.F., vide Annexure-5. Mr.S.C.Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner here while not disputing that there is clear recording by the Ombudsman undertaking to work out the direction of the G.R.F. dated 4.12.2020 in Consumer Complaint No.15 of 2020 and the order dated 4.12.2020 passed in Consumer

¶32

Complaint Case No.24/2020. However, Mr.Dash, learned counsel

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

// 4 //

¶35

for the Petitioner thus attempted to challenge this recording on the premises that there was in fact no such undertaking given by the Authorised Officer at the end of the Proceeding. It is for the merit involving challenge of the order of the G.R.F., learned counsel for the Petitioner attempted also to contest the order of the G.R.F.

¶36

Mr.L.K.Maharana, learned counsel for the contesting O.P.1 taking this Court to the Proceeding at the end of the Ombudsman at the instance of the Petitioner intending to implement the order dated 4.12.2020 passed in Consumer Complaint No.15 of 2020 and order dated 4.12.2020 passed in Consumer Complaint No.23 of 2020. Reading through the last but one paragraph of the order dated 11.1.2021 passed by the Ombudsman in C.R.Case No.OM(II) N-25 of 2020, vide Annexure-8 herein, Mr.Maharana attempted to satisfy the clear recording of the Authorised Officer. Mr.Maharana, however, in view of the clear recording of the undertaking contended, once there is disposal of a dispute with undertaking of the contesting O.P. to implement such order, there is no scope for the High Court to interfere in such orders in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶37

Considering the rival contentions of the Parties, this Court finds, even though the Writ Petition involved challenge to both the

¶38

orders at Annexure-5 and 8 but here looking to the clear undertaking

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

// 5 //

¶41

and recording thereof in Annexure-8 Proceeding finds, the Ombudsman has recorded as follows :-

¶42

“From the above discussions and after going through the facts & circumstances, it is observed that the respondent has not implemented the aforesaid orders of the learned GRF, Jajpur road. However, in this regard, the respondent during hearing has sought for 15 days time before this Authority for implementation of the same. During hearing, both the parties were also intimated that they will cooperate to each other to resolve the grievance of the petitioner. As this case is filed before this Authority for implementation of the order dt.04.12.2020 in Case No.15/2020 and order dt.04.12.2020 in Case No.24/2020, this Authority is of opinion to direct the petitioner to cooperate the respondent in this regard and the respondent is directed to implement the aforesaid order dt.04.12.2020 in Case No.15/2020 and order dt.04.12.2020 in Case No.24/2020 of the learned GRF, Jajpur Road within 15 days from the date of this order.

¶43

The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Hon’ble OERC for enforcement of such order of the learned GRF, Jajpur Road under the provisions of Sections 142 and 146 of the Electricity Act 2003, if the respondent fails to implement the aforesaid orders of the learned GRF, Jajpur Road within the above stipulated time.”

¶44

This Court reading the aforesaid finds, there is not only clear undertaking of the Authorised Officer of the contesting O.P. therein, the Petitioner herein but even there has been recording of the direction by the Ombudsman to the Petitioner to cooperate the Authority in opposition in order to implement the order of the G.R.F. involved therein.

¶45

In the circumstance and further for the clear recording, this

¶46

Court finds, the contention raised herein in challenge to the orders at

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

// 6 //

¶49

Annexure-5 & 8 is not sustainable in the eye of law. In the circumstance, the order at Annexure-8 in the present situation is not challengeable unless the Petitioner is able to prove that there is no such undertaking through appropriate proceeding. This Court accordingly finds, there is no scope for entertaining a challenge by the Petitioner to Annexure-5 herein. In the result, the Writ Petition

¶50

since not maintainable thus stands dismissed.

¶51

(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
(M.S.Sahoo)
Judge
M.K.Rout

¶52

M.K.Rout

¶53

Page 6 of 6

The Executive Engineer Electrical, Nesco Utility v. M/S. Harekrishna Rice Processing and Exports

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer Electrical, Nesco Utility v. M/S. Harekrishna Rice Processing and Exports

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

State Vs Bhaba@Bhabagrahi

Bishnu Ch.Sahoo Vs State

Walsons Services Private Ltd. Vs Authority Under Minimum Wages

Walsons Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs Authority Under Minimum Wages ACT,1948 and Regional Labour Commissionercentral

The Executive Engineer Electrical, Nesco Utility Vs M/S. Harekrishna Rice Processing and Exports

The Executive Engineer Electrical, Nesco Utility Vs M/S. Krupalu Solvent