Dismissed

Executive Engineer,Berhampur Electrical Division No.Iii v. M/S.Vinayak Agro and Paddy Processor at Sihala

Orissa HC20 Jun 2024WP(C)/6349/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ petition challenging an award by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The Adalat had ordered a refund of estimated electricity charges due to deficiency of service. The court held the award was appropriately passed and declined to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 19.08.2015 stands unaltered.

Executive Engineer,Berhampur Electrical Division… — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.6349 of 2019

¶3

The Executive Engineer, …. Petitioner(s) Berhampur Electrical Division No.III, SOUTHCO, Ganjam

¶4

Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Sr. Adv.

¶5

along with associates

¶6

-versus-

¶7

M/s. Vinayak Agro and Paddy …. Opposite Parties Processor at Sihala, Ganjam & Anr.

¶8

Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Sreejit Mohanty, Adv. for O.P.1

CORAM:

Order No.

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER

¶13

20.06.2024

¶14

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶15

2 . In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged

¶16

the award dated 19.08.2015/Annexure-4 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Ganjam in PLA Case No.100 of 2015.

¶17

3 . Factual scenario of the case as well as submissions on behalf of the parties in brevity remains:-

¶18

(i) In order to avail the power supply to run her Medium

¶19

Industry, the proprietor of the Opposite Party No.1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed applied for electricity connection to her industrial unit. As Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of Orissa th ere was no proper system to supply electricity to the Date: 24-Jun-2024 17:33:44 industry of the Petitioner by the erstwhile electricity

¶20

Page 1 of 5

¶21

Company, the Opposite Party No.1 as per the provision of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 was required to bear a portion of charges/expenses incurred for installation of the system, on remunerative basis.

¶22

(ii) The estimated cost towards such remunerative charges was fixed tentatively at a sum of Rs.3,12,187/-. As per the provision, upon completion of work the documents i.e. vouchers/bills, purchase orders and materials etc. were required to be provided by the concerned consumer to show the expenses of funds utilized for setting up of such supply line.

¶23

(iii) It is pertinent to mention here that as per the provision at Regulation 13, it is the obligation of the licensee to supply power and recover the expenditure. In the event new construction of structure and Sub-Station are required for supply of electricity to a single beneficiary, which requires a huge investment, a portion of the expenses for installation of such system is required to be borne by the particular consumer, which would be adjusted in phased manner in the subsequent electricity billing upon submission of vouchers/purchase orders etc.

¶24

but not later than 24 months.

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Jun-2024 17:33:44

¶27

(iv) At this juncture, learned Senior Advocate appearing o n b ehalf of the Petitioner submits that after availing the power supply the Opposite Party No.1 neither provided

¶28

Page 2 of 5

¶29

required documents like the materials/ vouchers / purchase order etc. in order to prove the expenses, nor cleared the electricity dues in time. However, the Opposite Party No.1, on the other hand, filed an application under Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 before the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Ganjam at Berhampur vide PLA Case No.100/2015 on the premises of “Deficiency in Service”. In the said application the Opposite Party No.1 had made an allegation of nondisbursement of the remunerative charges in her favour in terms of the provision at Regulation 13. Hence, she had prayed therein for refund of a sum of Rs.3,12,187/- with interest.

¶30

(v) Thereafter, on being served with notice the Petitioner being the respondent therein, filed its written statement under Section 22 (C) (3) (a) of the Legal Services Authorities Act.

¶31

(vi) Looking to the written statement and considering the submissions of both the parties, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Ganjam at Berhampur while disposing of the above noted PLA Case on 19^th August, 2015, passed the following award:-

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Jun-2024 17:33:44

¶34

“ AWARD

¶35

The Application filed under Section 22 C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 be and the same is allowed on merit in terms sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 22 C of the said Act against the respondent

¶36

Page 3 of 5

¶37

there being “Deficiency in service” within the meaning of Sec. 22 A (b) (iii) of the LSA Act.

¶38

It is hereby ordered that the “questioned scheme” when found to be a “Remunerative one”, the Respondent-Executive Engineer shall extend that benefit so for deprived to the applicant-consumer in terms of Regulation-13 (1) of the OERC Distribution (conditions of supply) Code, 2004 read with the entries inserted in Appendix-I annexed thereto. Such benefit being not extended in terms of Regulation-11(iii) by the Executive Engineer without reasonable cause and lawful excuse, such amount which comes to Rs.3,12,187/- shall be refunded with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment. Alternatively, such amount shall be adjusted from the bill from October, 2015 onwards but without interest. However, no compensation is imposed to prove further opportunity to the Respondent-Executive Engineer not to act contrary to statutory provisions in future.

¶39

Parties shall bear their own cost.”

¶40

(vii) Challenging the above award dated 19^th August, 2015 learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that while adjudicating the above noted PLA Case, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat should have gone into the documents i.e. bills, vouchers and purchase order etc. But, without looking to the same the learned Permanent Lok Adalat went ahead with the matter by fixing an approximate amount.

¶41

(viii) To the contrary, learned counsel for the Opposite

¶42

Signature Not VerifiedParty No.1 submits that though the award has been passed

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Jun-2024 17:33:44

¶44

in the year 2015 the Petitioner has challenged the same in the year 2019, which is also barred by law. Hence, this Writ Petition is not maintainable.

¶45

Page 4 of 5

¶46

(ix) He further submits that since the Opposite Party No.1 had submitted all the documents i.e. bills, vouchers and purchase order etc. before the authority concerned for adjustment of the same in the monthly electricity bill, she could not produce the same at the relevant point of time. Hence, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat in order to cut short the litigation fixed an approximate amount to the tune of Rs.3,12,187/-. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

¶47

4 . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has passed the award dated 19^th August, 2015 appropriately, which warrants no interference of this Court. This Court, therefore, declines to interfere in the impugned order.

¶48

5 . This Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶49

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶50

Ayaskanta

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Jun-2024 17:33:44

¶53

Page 5 of 5

Executive Engineer,Berhampur Electrical Division No.Iii v. M/S.Vinayak Agro and Paddy Processor at Sihala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Executive Engineer,Berhampur Electrical Division No.Iii v. M/S.Vinayak Agro and Paddy Processor at Sihala

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

Deepali Patel Vs State of Orissa

Baishnab Ch.Sahoo Vs State and Ors.

Shipra Mukherjee Vs the Branch Manager, Axis Bank Ltd. W.B

Amitabh Choudhury Vs Secretary, Departme

Tarani Ch.Dash Vs Chief Secretary,Gen

Satish Kumar Sahoo Vs Union Bank of India, Bbsr