The Executive Engineer vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 3802 Ori

                         ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K
                                       W.P.(C) NO.3202 OF 2016
                     An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.


           The Executive Engineer, (Electrical),
           Bhubaneswar City Distribution Division No.II,
           Khurda                                                              : Petitioner

                                                 -Versus-

           Ombudsman-I,
           Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission,
           Bhubaneswar & anr.                                                  : O.Ps.


                 For Petitioner                          : M/s.D.K.Mohanty & P.K.Sahoo,
                                                           Advs.

                 For O.Ps.                               : M/s.S.Mohanty, Sr.Adv.
                                                           Mr.I.A.Acharya, Adv.

                                                 JUDGMENT

CORAM :

JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO

Date of Hearing & Date of Judgment : 19.04.2023

Biswanath Rath, J. The Writ Petition involves a challenge to the order of the

Ombudsman at Annexure-3 involving Consumer Representation Case

No.OM(I)-50 of 2015.

2. In the commencement of the proceeding, there is no dispute

at the Bar that the case at hand is similar to the case already decided by

this Court in W.P.(C) No.15232 of 2018 on 11.4.2023.

// 2 //

3. Be that as it may, this Court finds, here the core issue

involved herein is if the Consumer is liable to pay 6% towards

supervision charges and 1% towards Cess claimed towards Consumer's

upgradation works of the transformer. This Court keeping in view the

response of the respective Parties before the Authority below examined

the Case Record to find the Case here stands on same footing. In

deciding W.P.(C) No.15232 of 2018, this Court has already come to hold

that the work conducted by the Consumer being permitted by the

Licensee is exclusively on his own property having no discharge with the

Licensee.

4. At this stage, this Court again coming back to the challenge

in respect of the impugned order finds, the Ombudsman in taking into

account the rival contentions of the Parties came to the conclusion in

allowing the complain in favour of the Licensee and taking into

consideration the provisions at Regulations 28, 30, 33 & 42 of the OERC

Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004, which all clearly

support the case of the Consumer. It is on both counts, i.e., clear

statutory provision supporting the claim of the Consumer, the Consumer

is again finding support of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.15232 of 2018, this Court finds no strength in the submission of the

learned counsel for the Petitioner in the challenge of the impugned order

herein .

// 3 //

5. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the

Petitioner to grant reasonable time to work out the direction, vide the

impugned order herein, this Court directs, the order of the Ombudsman

is to be complied with within fifteen days hence, failing which the

Consumer will be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum all through.

6. This Court finding Mr.P.K.Sahoo, learned counsel for the

Petitioner is not in proper attire imposes cost of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one

thousand) to be deposited in the Orissa High Court Advocates Welfare

Fund at last to have a check in the maintenance of the decorum in the

court proceeding hereafter.

7. The Writ Petition stands dismissed but with direction for

compliance as indicated herein above.

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




Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

The 19th April, 2023/M.K.Rout, A.R.-cum-Sr.Secy.