Orissa High Court
Executive Engineer vs Senior Divisional Electrical ... on 4 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 26083 of 2020
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
---------------------
Executive Engineer, Electrical
(TPCODL), City Distribution
Division-II, Badambadi, Cuttack ........ Petitioner
-Versus-
Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer(TRD),
East Coast Railway, Khurda Road,
Khurda ........ Opp. Party
For Petitioner : Mr. Debaranjan Ray, Advocate
For Opp. Party : Mr. D. Gochhayat, Advocate
------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing:04.04.2023 Date of Judgment: 04.04.2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a challenge to the order dated 31.07.2020 passed by
the Grievance Redressal Forum, Cuttack in Case No.303 of
2020 vide Annexure-4, the writ petition has been filed with
the following prayer :
"It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be graciously be pleased to admit this writ
application, issue notice to the opp.party and upon
hearing the parties to the dispute, set aside/quash
the impugned order dated 31.07.2020 passed by the
Grievance Redressal Forum, Cuttack in Case No.303
of 2020."
// 2 //
2. Annexure-1 of the petition discloses the Consumer,
East Coast Railway (opposite party herein) finding no
resolution of a large number of feed extension cases which
appear to be at the relevant point of time 43 no of cases up-to
Feb-2020, pending before the petitioner-distribution licensee
approached the GRF for appropriate relief. On notices being
issued by GRF the petitioner-licensee filed their response.
Based on the rival contentions, GRF passed final order
(Annexure-4) issuing directions, which has been challenged
by filing the writ petition.
3. Mr. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
licensee attacked the impugned order on two grounds :
the first being when the feed extension cases were
pending before the authority, they were not attained by the
authorized agent of the Consumer-East Coast Railway for
resolution of such dispute, instead of approaching competent
authority, the consumer has approached the GRF directly. Mr
Ray thus raises a challenge maintainability of such
proceeding before GRF.
However, Mr. Ray, does not dispute that there has been
resolution of at least 12 feed extension cases by the licensee-
petitioner stretching over December, 2015 upto June, 2019
and such resolution taking place in between November, 2017
to December, 2019. Apart from the above, Mr. Ray also
draws attention of the Court to the directions of the forum
and attempts to challenge the same alleging that the
directions are contrary to the provisions of law.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
consumer referring to the application annexed as Annexure-1
that there is no question of law to be raised by the licensee
for adjudication before this Court.
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
Regarding the directions issued by the GRF order being
challenged by licensee, learned counsel for the East Coast
Railway contended that the direction is clearly in terms of the
tripartite settlement dated 21.05.2008.
5. It is not disputed by learned counsel Mr.Ray that on the
basis of directions of the Odisha Electricity Regulatory
Commission (the OERC), there is a tripartite settlement
signed on 21.05.2008 operating in between the parties i.e. the
licensee, OPTCL (Odisha Transmission Corporation) and the
consumer-Railway, containing paragraph Nos.7(i), (ii), (iii),
(iv), which are binding in all the signatories.
6. In considered view of this Court, undisputedly, 43 no of
feed extension cases have been pending before the licensee
and there is continuing cause of action for non-disposal of
such proceedings compelling the petitioner to file petition
before the GRF. Therefore, the plea of delay by the consumer
in approaching GRF and that limitation has set in alleged by
the petitioner-licensee has to be rejected.
7. Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for
the respective parties, this Court observes that the dispute
regarding 43 no of feed extension cases were still pending
before the licensee at various levels at the time of filing of the
proceeding before the GRF.
There is no dispute regarding the pendency of such feed
extension disputes. Further, from para-5 at page 36 of the
GRF order, this Court finds licensee has resolved 12 number
of feed extension cases beyond two years. It is in these
circumstances, this Court discredits the plea of limitation
raised by licensee in disputed GRF proceeding.
Coming to the merit of the directions in the impugned
order of GRF, this Court finds the directions 3 & 4 and
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
observations appear to be binding conditions in tripartite
settlement dated 21.05.2008 Paragraphs 7(i) to 7(iv). It is
noticed that one of the parties to agreement OPTCL (Odisha
Power Transmission Corporation Limited) the entity that
transmits power to the petitioner-licensee has not challenged
the order of the GRF. It would be unfair for the licensee to act
contrary to the settlement. This Court finds there is no
infirmity in the impugned order.
Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.
The interim order passed earlier stands vacated and
this Court directs the licensee-petitioner to comply direction
of the GRF within thirty days of the order.
e
........................... ..........................
Biswanath Rath, J. M.S.Sahoo,J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 4th April, 2023/dutta
dutta
