Disposed

Executive Engineer,Nesco Utility v. Ashadeep Aquaculture Pvt.Ltd.

Orissa HC2 May 2024WP(C)/8286/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a writ petition challenging an order of the Grievances Redressal Forum (GRF) regarding the conversion category of a consumer for electricity supply. The court noted the GRF's direction was not based on materials on record or its own reasoning and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of based on the findings regarding the lack of basis for the impugned order.

Executive Engineer,Nesco Utility Vs Ashadeep Aquaculture… — Consumer Protection | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No.8286 of 2016

¶3

Executive Engineer, NESCO Utility

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

Repre s ented By Adv. -

¶6

Mr. S.C. Dash, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Ashadeep Aquaculture Pvt. Ltd. And another

¶9

..... Opposite Parties

¶10

Repre s ented By Adv. – M r. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

¶13

AND

¶14

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

ORDER

02.05.2024

Order No.

1. Mr. D a sh, learned advocate appears on be h alf of petitioner

¶19

(supplier). He submits, under limited challenge is order dated 15^th October, 2015 made by the Grievances Redressal F o rum (GRF). By impugned or d er there was direction to change category of the consumer fro m general purpose to ‘Allied Agri c ultural Activity Category’. The change has been effected by his client from date of

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

registration o f opposite party no.1, issued by Minist r y of Agriculture. However, the GRF had directed conversion from d a te of application i.e. 18^th June, 2015. The consumer is not entitled t o the concession for the period commencing with its application and prior to grant of the registratio n . Hence the writ petition.

¶22

Mr. K huntia, learned advocate appears o n behalf of the consumer an d submits, since inception his clien t was a coastal aquaculture fi r m. It cannot be disputed by the su p plier. The facts were apprecia t ed by the GRF on hearing both sides a nd the direction made. There is no perversity. Accordingly, there b e no interference in judicial rev i ew.

¶23

We ha v e perused impugned order. We find the supplier had communicate d to the consumer on 2^nd March, 201 5 to submit, inter alia, certifica t e of registration with Coastal Aq u aculture Forum issued under M inistry of Agriculture, Government o f India. The GRF noted that wi t hout complying with requisite forma l ities, for change of category, t h e consumer started to draw power in excess of his agreed Contr a ct Demand (CD) and, inter alia, executed agreement dated 23^rd M a rch, 2015 with the supplier for su p ply on General Purpose Cate g ory by enhancement of load.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

We also find from impugned order the G RF, for better appreciation, c lassified why the certificate of regist r ation of Coastal Aquaculture Forum issued under Ministry of Agricu l ture, is required. In clarifying t he GRF referred to judgment dated 11^th December, 1996 of the S u preme Court between S. Jagannath v. Union of India and others . H aving done so the GRF directed con v ersion from date of application. The reason for this, we could not find.

¶26

The G RF having had emphasized the requirement of registration a n d the registration certificate having been issued on 27^th January, 2016, prior to which the consumer was d r awing enhanced power load u nder agreement for general categ o ry supply, the direction appears to be not based on either materials on record or the reasoning the f orum itself gave in impugned order.

¶27

Actio n taken by petitioner (supplier) i n causing the conversion fr o m date of the certificate was duly done. The writ petition is dis p osed of on our above findings and declaration.

¶28

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Sks Date: 02-May-2024 17:55:00

¶31

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Executive Engineer,Nesco Utility v. Ashadeep Aquaculture Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Executive Engineer,Nesco Utility v. Ashadeep Aquaculture Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swarup Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Gobinda Narayan Mallik Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Utkal Auto Vs State of West Bengal

Swadesh Kumar Biswal Vs Seema Smaraki Ray

Nibedita Dash Vs Biswa @ Biswaraj Dash

Gandhi Mohanta Vs State of Odisha