Orissa High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Ombudsman-Ii Of Electricity on 10 May, 2023
A.F.R. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.15006 of 2017
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India.
---------------------
The Executive Engineer, (Electrical),
(erstwhile NESCO),Presently-TPNODL, Jajpur Road
Electrical Division, Dist-Jajpur ........ Petitioner
-Versus-
OMBUDSMAN-II of Electricity, Bhubaneswar
and another ........ Opp.Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. S.C.Dash,
Advocate
For Opp.party no. 2 : Mr. S.K.Patnaik, Sr. Advocate
Instructed by Mr. P.K.Pattnaik
------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing: 05.05.2023 Date of judgment: 10.05.2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.S.SAHOO, J
Introduction
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-
Distribution Licensee challenging the order/award dated
25.02.2017 passed in Consumer Representation (C.R.)
Case No.37 of 2015 by the Ombudsman-II, Orissa
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Annexure-5),
exercising powers under Clause-7 of OERC (GRF &
Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004 (hereinafter in short,
"Regulations, 2004").
// 2 //
2. The judgment of Ombudsman passed in C.R. Case
is result of the petition filed by the present opposite party
no.2.-Consumer.
3. It has to be noted that the present petitioner has
stepped into the shoes of the earlier licensee, namely,
NESCO and the present opposite party no.2 has stepped
into the shoes of its predecessor, Idea Cellular
Infrastructure Ltd. Both the petitioner and opposite
party no.2 have been substituted duly in view of they
coming to existence in place of the earlier distribution
licensee and the consumer respectively by due process of
law.
Brief Facts
4. The Distribution licensee and the consumer entered
into an agreement dated 05.10.2009 for supply of 15KW
load and voltage of supply at 11 KV for purpose of VTS
Tower at Sathipur in the district of Jajpur.
Proceeding before the Grievance Redressal Forum
4.1 The consumer/opposite party no.2 raised a
complaint before the Grievance Redressal Forum, Jajpur
Road, alleging;
(i) that the distribution licensee in contravention of
Regulation 13(1) of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of
Supply) Code, 2004 (hereinafter in short, "Code, 2004")
did not extend remunerative benefit to the consumer;
(ii) Instead of licensee providing the supply system
as the contract demand was less than 70 KVA, in
contravention of Regulation-76(1) (c) of the Code, 2004,
// 3 //
the petitioner was asked and compelled for construction
of his electricity supply line;
(iiii) the billing for the consumer was done at low
tension (LT) tariff, as per the different tariff orders of the
OERC and the consumer could not have been imposed
transformer loss along with its energy charges being
billed on LT tariff. However, the licensee charged
transformer loss in each bill, which is in contravention of
Regulation 93(9) of the Code, 2004;
(iv) in contravention of Regulation 54(3) of the Code,
2004, the licensee did not provide HT metering set.
4.2 Based on the above contentions, the consumer in
its petition before the GRF made the following prayer:
Extend remunerative benefit to the petitioner.
1. Withdraw transformer loss from the bill and
accordingly bill to be revised.
2. Extend TOD benefit from the available dump data
or 1/4th units of the petitioner's consumption of the
meter as off-peak is being 6 hours only i.e., 1/4th
of a day.
3. Revise demand charges as per different tariff
orders of Hon'ble OERC but not on the basis of
contract demand.
4. Extend OYT benefit from April, 2011 onwards as
such scheme as applicable from the RST order
from 2011-12."
5. The present petitioner-opposite party before the
GRF/Distribution licensee, filed their counter denying
that remunerative benefit can be extended to the
consumer. Regarding LT/HT billing, it was stated :
that as per Retail Supply tariff order in force,
General purpose consumers with Contract Demand (CD)
// 4 //
less than 70 KVA shall be treated as LT consumers for
Tariff purposes irrespective of level of supply of voltage.
This implies that instead of flat rate of energy charge @
Rs.5.05 per unit billing is being done on slab rate
applicable to General purpose category. Monthly energy
bill in respect of the consumer is prepared by summation
of units consumed and applicable transformer loss units
since supply voltage is 11000 volts and metering is done
on LT side of the transformer. Contract demand of the
consumer being 15 KW Service Connection estimate with
installation of TP Box for whole current meter is provided
and a whole current meter bearing No.NDT 00842 is also
installed in the consumer's premises.
5.1 In response to the prayer no.iii before the GRF, the
licensee denied the same on the following reasoning :
"In reply to prayer at © it is submitted that TOD
benefit extended to the consumers on record based
data of the static meter installed having facility of
recording hourly consumption with a memory of 31
days and downloading print out drawing power
during off peak hours. Hence prayer made by the
petition for extending TOD benefit proportionately
so ¼th of the consumption is baseless and may be
rejected."
5.2 In response to prayer no.4, the distribution licensee
stated before the GRF as follows :
"iv. As regards to revision of demand charge as
prayed at (d) it is submitted that the matter is
pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Odisha in
W.P.(C) No.3881 of 2013 & Misc. Case No.3758 of
2013 between Flexi Multi Products and NESCO Ltd.
Action will be taken for revision if due on receipt of
necessary order."
// 5 //
5.3 Regarding installation of the transformer, it was
stated by the distribution licensee before the GRF that
the date of power supply of the concerned consumer is
24.10.2009 and the consumer has been permitted to
install his own transformer prior to the effective date of
Retail supply tariff order dated 18.03.2011 and had also
installed his own transformer well before. Hence neither
the petitioner is an intending consumer nor has deposited
such cost of high voltage distribution scheme.
6. The GRF disposed of C.C.No.171 of 2014 with the
following order :
"Heard both the parties. Perused all the
corresponding documents. Having done so, it is felt
by the members of the Forum that OYT benefit as
applicable from April, 2011 onwards should be
made admissible to the petitioner with immediate
effect. Other prayers of the petitioner are disposed
off without any result for the reasons elaborated in
the "OBSERVATION".
Proceeding before Ombudsman of OERC
7. Thereafter, the consumer moved the Ombudsman -
II, OERC, Bhubaneswar by filing C.R.Case No.37 of 2015
dated 17.07.2015 against the order passed by the GRF
with the following prayer :
"For the interest of justice and equity the Hon'ble
Ombudsman-II may graciously be pleased to
admit the case and direct the respondent to :
a) Extend OYT scheme benefit as per Order
No.112(2) dated 10.03.2015 of the GRF,
NESCO, Jajpur Road in Case No.171 of 2014.
And adjudicate the matter on the following
prayers of the petitioner for extending following
benefits:
b) To extend remunerative benefit to the petitioner.
// 6 //
c) To withdraw transformer loss from the bill and
accordingly bill to be revised.
d) To extend TOD benefit from the available dump
data or 1/4th units of the petitioner's
consumption of the meter as off-peak is being 6
hours only i.e., 1/4th of a day.
e) To revise demand charges as per different tariff
orders of Hon'ble OERC but not on the basis of
contract demand."
8. The distribution licensee by their counter reply
dated 24.08.2015 filed before the Ombudsman denied
the claim of the consumer stating in response to the
prayer (a) to (e) that the consumer is not entitled for
availing remunerative benefit. Even though the consumer
billed as LT, still is liable to be imposed transformer loss;
the petitioner is not entitled to TOD benefit; the demand
charge revision is pending adjudication before the High
Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No.3881 of 2013 (Flexi Multi
Products and NESCO Ltd.) and action can be taken after
the orders of the High Court and lastly it was stated the
petitioner-consumer was required to install the
transmission line and transformer, there being no
irregularity as alleged.
9. The Ombudsman after dealing with the pleadings of
the consumer as well as the distribution licensee in detail
especially the technical aspects which the Ombudsman
is competent to deal with, held that :
9.1 Non-extension of remunerative benefit to the
consumer, is in contravention of Regulation 13(1) of the
Code, 2004 as per the tariff orders of the statutory
authority, i.e., OERC, the remunerative benefits should
// 7 //
be attached with the estimate of the power consumption
of the consumer.
There is no provision for transformer loss for LT
consumer. It remains undisputed that the consumer is
billed as a LT consumer but the licensee has imposed
183 Units as transformer loss in each bill which is to be
held as illegal.
9.2 For such findings, the Ombudsman relied on the
Note-xiii of RST order for the year 2015-16 with a further
finding that while deciding the LT tariff, the transformer
loss has already been taken into consideration, therefore,
imposition of transformer loss of a consumer billed in LT
tariff, would amount to double recovery towards
transformer loss which cannot be justified.
9.3 Regarding TOD benefit whether to be granted to the
consumer or not, the Ombudsman has given the
following reasoning and finding :
"TOD benefit:
As per the RST order 2005-06 at para-8.31.2,
three phase consumers with static meters are
allowed to avail TOD rebate excluding the public
lighting and emergency power supply to CGP @ 10
paisa per unit for energy consumed during off peak
hours. Off-peak hours has been defined as 10 PM
to 6 AM which has been modified to 12.00 midnight
to 6AM subsequently.
The above incentive is allowed to the
consumers to increase their drawal during off peak
hours so as to reduce the difference between peak
and off-peak demand and flatten the load curve so
that the generation capacity will be better utilized.
The petitioner has complained that TOD benefit has
not been given to him so far. The respondent is
directed to extend TOD benefit to the consumer
// 8 //
based on the prevailing tariff order prospectively
and based on the dump data available with the
licensee for the retrospective period."
9.4 Regarding demand charges, the Ombudsman has
given the following finding :
"Demand charges:
As per Regulation-64 as well as RST order for
2005-06 the demand charge/MMFC charges are
to be raised based on recorded demand for the
consumers below 110 KVA having static meter. As
complained by the consumer, the licensee is not
raising demand charge on recorded demand but
claiming the same on the contracted demand
which is violating the Regulation as well as tariff
orders of Hon'ble OERC. The respondent is
directed to raise the demand charge/MMFC based
on orders of Hon'ble OERC prospectively and for
the retrospective period starting from the date of
power supply onwards based on the dump data
available with them & considering applicable tariff
orders for the period. The amount of refund or
claim if any should be reflected in the next bill."
10. Based on the above findings, the Ombudsman has
given the award as follows :
"1. To withdraw the claim towards transformer
loss from the bill of the consumer from the date of
power supply to till date and stop billing against
transformer loss in future bills.
2. To extend TOD benefit to the consumer based
on the prevailing tariff order prospectively and
based on the dump data available with the
licensee for the retrospective period starting from
the date of power supply.
3. To raise the demand charge based on the
recorded maximum demand as per the orders of
Hon'ble OERC prospectively and for the
retrospective period starting from the date of
power supply onwards based on the dump data
// 9 //
available with them & tariff orders of OERC for
respective years.
4. To allow OYT rebate to the consumer as per
orders of GRF, Jajpur Road vide order dated
10.03.2015 in Case No.171 of 2014.
The respondent is directed to revise the bills of the
petitioner as per above direction and serve to the
petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt
of letter of acceptance from the petitioner and file
compliance to this Forum within 45 days.
The petitioner is directed to pay the revised bill
amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of
revised bill from the respondent."
Submissions of the learned counsel
11. Heard Mr. S.C. Dash, learned counsel for the
petitioner-distribution licensee and Mr. S.K. Patnaik,
Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. P.K.Pattanaik for
opposite party-consumer.
Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner with all
vehemence submitted that the order passed by the
Ombudsman is unsustainable as the judgment was
delivered after the expiry of stipulated time of 60 days
hearing prescribed under Clause-7(4) of the Regulation,
2004. The Ombudsman has not taken into consideration
the objection filed by the licensee in response to the
consumer representation case. The Ombudsman did not
make an effort for conciliation between the parties. It is
further submitted that the order passed by the
Ombudsman is unsustainable in law and is liable to be
set aside.
12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the consumer
submits that the order passed by the Ombudsman is just
and proper. The High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction
// 10 //
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can
interfere with the order passed by the statutory authority
only if there is error apparent on the face of the record as
per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is
further submitted that this Court does not sit in appeal
over the finding of the fact and the technical issues dealt
with by the Ombudsman of OERC and this Court cannot
substitute its own views as far as the finding of facts by
the GRF & Ombudsman are concerned. It is finally
submitted there being no error apparent on the face of
the record, the order passed by the Ombudsman being
just and proper, the attempt of the distribution licensee
to challenge the same, should fail.
Analysis & Conclusion
The relevant provisions of laws dealt with by the
Forums such as the Ombudsman and the GRF are
quoted herein :
"54(3). In the case of all new high-tension supplies, HT
metering units shall be provided and installed. In case
where LT metering unit is provided at L.T. side, all L.T.
metering units shall be converted to H.T. metering
units. For existing L.T. metering units connected on the
L.T. side of the consumer's transformers, the reading of
such metering units, shall be added with the average
losses in the transformers calculated as below:
(a) Energy loss in transformer in units per month = (730
X rating of the transformer in KVA) /100,
(b) Demand loss in transformer in KVA = One percent of
the rating of the transformer in KVA
93(9) In the case of High Tension supply, if HT metering
set can not be readily provided and
installed, LT metering set shall be provided and
connected on the LT side of the
// 11 //
consumer's transformers. To the reading of such
metering set, will be added the average
losses in the transformers calculated as follows:
(a) Energy loss in transformer in units per month = (730
X rating of the transformer in
KVA)/100,
(b) Demand loss in transformer in KVA = One percent
of the rating of the transformer in KVA. Pass Book/
Meter reading Card"-
Connected Load and Contract Demand
64. Contract demand for loads of 110 KVA and above
shall be as stipulated in the agreement and may be
different from the connected load. Contract demand for
a connected load below 110 KVA shall be the same as
the connected load. However in case of installation
with static meter/meter with provision of recording
demand, the recorded demand rounded to nearest 0.5
Kw shall be considered as the contract demand
requiring no verification.
85. (1) Monthly demand charges shall be payable by
the consumer on the basis of maximum demand and
contract demand as determined in the tariff
notification. In case maximum demand meter is not
provided or the meter has become defective, the
monthly demand charges shall be payable on the basis
of contract demand as determined in the
tariff notification.
(2) Such monthly demand charges shall be payable
during the continuance of the agreement under
Regulation 15 even if no electricity is consumed for any
reason whatsoever or supply has been disconnected
due to default of the consumer.
(3) During statutory power-cuts and power restrictions
imposed by the licensee, if the restriction on demand is
imposed for a period exceeding
sixty hours in a month, the 44 monthly demand
charges shall be prorated in accordance with the period
and quantum of demand restrictions imposed. In all
other cases the consumer shall be liable to pay the full
demand charges.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having gone through the pleadings before the GRF as
// 12 //
well as Ombudsman, this Court is of the view that there
is no error apparent on the face of the record as the
Ombudsman has dealt with the rival contentions of the
consumer-opposite party no.2 herein and the supplier
of the electricity/distribution licensee/petitioner herein.
The relevant factual aspects have been noted in detail
and the provisions of law have also been referred to.
14. The claim of the consumer regarding remunerative
benefit has been rejected by the GRF and the
Ombudsman.
15. Regarding TOD benefit, in our opinion, it has been
correctly observed by the Ombudsman that the licensee
shall extend the benefit based on the prevailing tariff
order prospectively and the calculation is to be based on
the dump data available with the licensee for the period.
The consumer being a cellular telephone service provider
through the tower which has been supplied electricity by
the licensee and the consumption is throughout the day,
uniform, therefore, there is no difference between peak
hours and off-peak hours, i.e., off-peak being defined as
12 midnight to 6 A.M. of the next day.
16. Regarding the prayer of the consumer to charge it
MMFC charges based on recorded payment, on the basis
of Regulation-64 of the 2004 Regulation as well as the
RST order for 2005-06, the decision of the Ombudsman
is upheld as it has directed licensee to raise the demand
charge and MMFC on basis of the orders of the OERC,
the order of the OERC being binding on the licensee
which notifies the applicable tariff orders. The order of
// 13 //
the Ombudsman has also clarified that on basis of such
calculation, there may be amount of refund towards
consumer or there may not be claim by the licensee
which in considered view of this Court, is just and
proper.
17. Regarding the duty to hold conciliation between the
parties, the Ombudsman in its order has specifically
noted that on 16.09.2015 attempt for conciliation failed.
Till 16.09.2015, on various dates i.e., 10.08.2015,
notices were issued to attend the conciliation. On
13.08.2015, 11.08.2015, the petitioner-licensee filed time
petition, the matter was adjourned to 24.08.2015. On
24.08.2015, the petitioner-licensee filed counter,
opposite party no.2 wanted time to prepare the rejoinder
and the matter was adjourned to 16.09.2015. Therefore,
this Court rejects the contention of the petitioner that
there was no attempt for conciliation
18. The finding of fact by the Ombudsman that amount
towards transformer loss is included in the tariff
determined by the OERC remains uncontroverted
inasmuch as the licensee failed to produce any of the
tariff orders of the OERC before the GRF or the
Ombudsman to support its contention to indicate that in
fact for determination of LT tariff, transformer loss was
not included. The consumer's assertion that he is being
billed on the basis of LT tariff, has been consistently
accepted by the petitioner-licensee. But for reasons best
known to the licensee, it did not bring any material much
less any tariff order of the OERC to at least demonstrate
// 14 //
before the GRF or the Ombudsman that transformer loss
has not been taken into account in LT tariff.
19. Therefore, finding of the Ombudsman that after the
licensee has collected electricity duty/charges for
transformer loss having billed to the consumer in LT
tariff which includes transformer loss, further imposition
of charges towards transformer loss would amount to
collection of the amount twice and should not be
permitted, has to be upheld by this Court being just and
proper.
20. In our considered opinion though there has been
apparent delay in delivering the order by the
Ombudsman, since the order is passed after detailed
consideration of all the pleadings after thorough
participation of both the parties, setting aside the same
only on the ground that more time was taken than the
prescribed period for delivery of order/judgment, would
not be in the interest of justice and shall also cause
hardship to both the parties, who are pursuing the
litigation since 2014 and in the meanwhile nine years
have passed.
The relevant provisions prescribing the time for the
Ombudsman to deliver an order after adjudication is
quoted herein :
7(4) The Ombudsman shall decide the representation
generally within two months from the date of receipt of
the representation of the consumer. In the event the
representation is not decided within two months, the
Ombudsman shall record the reasons therefor including
the cost to be paid by the Licensee if the inability to
decide within the time is attributable to the Licensee. In
case the delay is for reasons attributable to the
// 15 //
Consumer, the Ombudsman may reject the
representation of the consumer."
The contention of the opposite party no.2-consumer-
petitioner that he is not responsible for any delay that
has occurred while delivering the order is correct, as is
evident from the proceedings before the Authority.
It is also not brought to the notice of this Court if at
all any of the parties ever appeared/approached/filed
petition before the Ombudsman regarding pendency of
the matter beyond the time limit for pronouncement of
the order, so as to prove the bonafides of the stand
taken in this regard by the licensee before this Court. As
it appears, only after the order of the Ombudsman went
against the licensee to certain extent they have raised
such a plea.
Further, there is no denial before any forum or this
Court regarding the assertions that the consumer was
billed on LT tariff.
Scope of judicial review of the findings given by
expert statutory bodies like GRF/Ombudsman of OERC
21. It would be apt to refer to the decision rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11095 of
2018 (GMR WARORA Energy Limited v. Central
Electricity Regultory Commission (CERC) & others) :
decided on 20.04.2023, regarding "concurrent finding of
fact. In GMR (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed as follows (paragraphs-127. 129 and 130) :
Concurrent Finding of Fact
// 16 //
127. Apart from the aforesaid issues, there is one
another common thread in all these appeals. Many of
these appeals arise out of concurrent findings
recorded by the Central/State Electricity Regulatory
Commissions and the learned APTEL.
128. This Court, in the case of MSEDCL v. APML &
Ors.a (supra), after considering the statutory
provisions in the Electricity Act, 2003, held that the
CERC, SERCs and the learned APTEL are bodies
consisting of experts in the field.
129. This Court, in the said case, observed thus:
"120. It could thus be seen that two expert bodies i.e.
the CERC and the learned APTEL have concurrently
held, after examining the material on record, that the
factors of SHR and GCV should be considered as per
the Regulations or actuals, whichever is lower. The
CERC as well as the State Regulatory bodies, after
extensive consultation with the stakeholders, had
specified the SHR norms in respective Tariff
Regulations. In addition, insofar as GCV is concerned,
the CEA has opined that the margin of 85-100 kcal/kg
for a non-pit head station may be considered as a loss
of GCV measured at wagon top till the point of firing of
coal in boiler.
121. In this respect, we may refer to the following
observations of this Court in the case of Reliance
Infrastructure Limited v. State of Maharashtra
[(2019) 3 SCC 352].
"38. MERC is an expert body which is entrusted with
the duty and function to frame regulations, including
the terms and conditions for the determination of
tariff. The Court, while exercising its power of judicial
review, can step in where a case of manifest
unreasonableness or arbitrariness is made out.
Similarly, where the delegate of the legislature has
failed to follow statutory procedures or to take into
account factors which it is mandated by the statute to
consider or has founded its determination of tariffs on
extraneous considerations, the Court in the exercise of
its power of judicial review will ensure that the statute
is not breached. However, it is no part of the function
of the Court to substitute its own determination for a
// 17 //
determination which was made by an expert body
after due consideration of material circumstances.
39. In Assn. of Industrial Electricity Users v. State of
A.P. [Assn. of Industrial Electricity Users v. State
of A.P., (2002) 3 SCC 711] b three-Judge Bench of
this Court dealt with the fixation of tariffs and held
thus : (SCC p. 717, para 11) "11. We also agree with
the High Court [S. Bharat Kumar v. State of A.P., 2000
SCC OnLine AP 565 : (2000) 6 ALD 217] that the
judicial review in a matter with regard to fixation of
tariff has not to be as that of an appellate authority in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
All that the High Court has to be satisfied with is that
the Commission has followed the proper procedure
and unless it can be demonstrated that its decision is
on the face of it arbitrary or illegal or contrary to the
Act, the court will not interfere. Fixing a tariff and
providing for cross-subsidy is essentially a matter of
policy and normally a court would refrain from
interfering with a policy decision unless the power
exercised is arbitrary or ex facie bad in law."
xxx xxx xxx
123. Recently, the Constitution Bench of this Court in
the case of Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of
India [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1] has held that the
Courts should be slow in interfering with the decisions
taken by the experts in the field and unless it is found
that the expert bodies have failed to take into
consideration the mandatory statutory provisions or
the decisions taken are based on extraneous
considerations or they are ex facie arbitrary and
illegal, it will not be appropriate for this Court to
substitute its views with that of the expert bodies."
130. As is indicated in the aforesaid judgments, this
Court should be slow in interfering with the concurrent
findings of fact unless they are found to be perverse,
arbitrary and either in ignorance of or contrary to the
statutory provisions.
[Emphasis supplied]
// 18 //
22. By applying the principles enunciated and laid
down in aMSEDCL (supra), it is held that this Court has
to be slow in interfering with the findings given by an
expert body like Ombudsman-II, OERC. As has been
held in Association of Industrial Electricity users v.
State of A.P. b(2002) 3 SCC 711, all that this Court
has to be satisfied is that the Ombudsman has followed
the proper procedure and unless it can be
demonstrated that the decision on the face of it is
arbitrary or illegal or contrary to the Act, this Court
would not interfere.
23. Following the principle laid down in the decision
rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of
India; 2023 SCC Online SC 1, it is held that this Court
should be slow in interfering the decision taken by expert
in the field, i.e., Ombudsman, OERC and it would not
interfere unless it is found that the expert body has failed
to take into consideration the mandatory statutory
provision or the decisions taken is, based on extraneous
considerations or it is ex-facie arbitrary and illegal. It
would not be appropriate for this Court to substitute its
views with that of the expert body.
_________________
a.MSEDCL V. APML & Others : 2023 SCC Online 233
b[Assn. of Industrial Electricity Users v. State of A.P., (2002)
3 SCC 711]
// 19 //
24. Applying these principles to the present case, it has
to be held that the petitioner has failed to bring to the
notice of this Court that any of the mandatory statutory
provisions have not been considered by the Ombudsman.
The petitioner has also failed to show that the decision of
the Ombudsman is based on extraneous consideration. To
reiterate the principles laid down in Vivek Narayan
Sharma (supra), this Court should slow in interfering with
the findings of the fact unless they are found to be
perverse, arbitrary and in ignorance of contrary to the
statutory provisions.
As discussed above, the petitioner distribution
licensee has failed in its efforts to make out any case
before this Court to interfere with the order passed by the
Ombudsman.
25. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed
being devoid of any merit. Interim order dated 23.04.2018
passed by this Court has not been extended beyond
25.6.2019. In dismissal of the writ petition interim order
also stands vacated. The order passed by the Ombudsman
be complied with forthwith.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
........................... ........................
Biswanath Rath, J. M.S.Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack AJIT Digitally signed
by AJIT KUMAR
The 10th May, 2023/dutta
KUMAR DUTTA
Date: 2023.05.11
