Disposed

Nibedita Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 May 2024WP(C)/35655/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking restoration of an electricity grievance dismissed for default by the Ombudsman during the pandemic after conciliation could not be attended. The supplier did not oppose restoration; the Court set aside the Ombudsman's order of dismissal and disposed of the writ petition directing compliance with conciliation requirements.

What did the court decide?

Ombudsman's dismissal order dated 17th August, 2021 set aside; matter restored for conciliation.

Nibedita Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha — Consumer Protection | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.35655 of 2021

¶2

Nibedita Mohapatra …. Petitioner

¶3

Represented by Adv.Mr. P.K. Rout, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.-

¶6

Mr. S.C. Dash, Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

¶9

ORDER 16.05.2024

¶10

Order No. 06. 1. Mr. Rout, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and

¶11

submits, his client is in darkness since long. Facts in the case were not ascertained by the Grievances Redressal Forum (GRF). His client moved the Ombudsman. The pandemic happened and she could not present herself for conciliation resulting in C.R. Case no. OM(I)-88 of 2021 being dismissed for default on 17^th August, 2021. In the circumstances, she is before Court for interference and relief.

¶12

Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of the supplier and refers to order dated 1^st March, 2021 of co-ordinate Bench in WP(C) no.5073 of 2021 (Pramod Kumar Rout v. G.R.F and others) and submits,

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

with same grievance the writ petition was filed. Pursuant to said order schedule of installments was notified to petitioner in that writ petition, who is husband of petitioner in the present writ petition. Two installments were paid and then default, leading to disconnection. He clarifies, the husband and wife are enjoying separate connections in name of someone else.

¶15

On query from Court Mr. Dash, in fairness submits, he does not oppose the matter be restored to the ombudsman.

¶16

We appreciate fair stand taken on behalf of the supplier. Order dated 17^th August, 2021 made by the Ombudsman is set aside on us, in effect, recalling it. Petitioner will communicate website copy of our this order to the authority forthwith and comply with requirement of conciliation as may be directed.

¶17

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

( Arindam Sinha ) Judge

¶19

( M.S. Sahoo ) Judge

¶20

Prasant

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 16-May-2024 18:59:47

¶23

Page 2 of 2

Nibedita Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nibedita Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Ram Babu Vs the Presiding Oficer Labour Court, Koraput

Prafulla Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Krishna Sarkar Vs State of Odisha

Mamina Tangur Vs State of Odisha

Nibedita Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Bipin Bihari Behera Vs State of Odisha