Executive Engineer (Elect.) vs Grievance Redressal Forum
2023 Latest Caselaw 5734 Ori

                   ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K
                                 W.P.(C) No.6124 of 2021
                          An application under Articles 226 & 227 of
                                   the Constitution of India


         Executive Engineer (Elect.), Electrical Division : Petitioner

                                           -Versus-

         Grievance Redressal Forum, Berhampur & Anr. : Opposite Parties



         For Petitioner                                   : M/s. P.K. Tripathy
         For Opposite Party No.1                          : None

         For Opposite Party No.2                          : M/s. S.K. Mohanty,
                                                                 J. Mohanty,
                                                                 R.R. Dash, S. Sahoo

                                           JUDGMENT

CORAM :

JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO Date of hearing & Date of Judgment : 11.05.2023

Per Biswanath Rath, J.

1. This Writ Petition involves the following prayer:-

<The petitioner therefore humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application issue a <Rule NISI= calling upon the Opp.Party No.2 to show cause as to why the writ application shall not be allowed and if the said OPP.Party fails to show cause or show insufficient cause, then after hearing the parties, your Lordship be pleased to allow the writ application by quashing the impugned order dt.08.11.2019 vide Annexure-8 passed in GRF, Berhampur in GRF Case No- 190/2019 as the same is illegal, arbitrary, contrary

// 2 //

to the conditions stipulated under the Agreement and Regulation, 2004.

And further be pleased to declare that OP is liable to pay the arrears as claimed under annexure-3, as the same is legal, in view of meter verification report under annexure- 2 & 5 of the writ petition.=

2. Through Annexure-1 it appears, finding serious fluctuation in voltage in his first attempt the consumer requested the licensee operating at the relevant time to check the meter and to reconcile with the billing. Factual aspect appears to be; finding no respite from the licensee the Consumer visited the GRF vide Annexure-6 clearly indicating the defective meter and as an outcome there has been defective billing. As a consequence a prayer was made before the GRF for directing the licensee to accept Rs.1,00,560/- as down payment and for reconnecting the power supply immediately. Such proceeding was registered as GRF Case No.119 of 2019. The main thrust of submission of the licensee appears to be in paragraph no.7 as follows:-

<7. That the petitioner after receipt of the letter bearing No.522 dated 28.03.2019 gave an application for reconciliation and revision of his electricity bill. Therefore with a view settle the matter and to know the accuracy of the existing meter, again a separate parallel meter was also installed in series supply with the existing meter on 27.04.2019 and on 29.04.2019, approximately after one month when the reading of both the meters were taken, it was found that the advance readings of both the meters were almost equal. So the accuracy of the existing meter is again verified and found OK. The detail statement of the existing meter and parallel meter as submitted by the Asst. Executive Engineer, Sub-division, Kanishi vide Lr. No.239 dated 17.06.2019 is enclosed herewith for kind perusal. As the status of the meter is OK, the petitioner has to pay the revised claim bill.=

3. The GRF basing on the pleadings of the parties and the submission made therein came to observe and order as follows:- "Observation

// 3 //

The recorded Kwh reading as against date & time in the dump report furnished by the respondent is as follows:-

Kwh Reading Time at Unit Sl.No. Date Billed As per hours advance in reading dump 1 09.04.2016 16.53.40 75049 75411 (03/2016) 2 11.07.2017 15.31.25 166455 3 13.07.2017 15.34.50 167231 2 days 776 units 4 14.07.2017 09.42.35 168202 18 hours 971 units 5 20.07.2017 12.23.00 173821 6 days 5610 units 6 13.12.2017 14.20.00 106527 309120 4 months 24 (12/2017) days 135308 units 7 13.01.2018 12.53.10 349100 1 month 39980 8 15.01.2018 10.43.40 349185 2 days 85 units 9 05.02.2018 07.48.55 350069 21days 884 units 10 01.03.2018 351133 25 days 1064 units 11 01.04.2018 352759 1 month 1626 units 12 01.05.2018 354373 1 month 1614 units 13 01.06.2018 356096 1 month 1723 units 14 01.07.2018 357752 1 month 1656 units 15 01.08.2018 359483 1 month 1731 units 16 01.09.2018 361228 1 month 1745 units 17 01.10.2018 362867 1 month 1639 units 18 01.11.2018 175941 364429 1 month 1562

// 4 //

(10/2018) units 19 01.12.2018 366088 1 month 1656 units 20 01.01.2019 367552 1 month 1464 units 21 01.02.2019 186868 369076 1 month 1524 (01/2019) units

From the above dump report & billing statement, it is found that, the billing upto the month of April 2016 has been made correctly and as per the actual consumption. Therefore, the revision of above period bill is not correct and not accepted. So the extra amount claimed bill from 12/2010 to 04/2016 is to be withdrawn. Because the bill has been prepared as per the actual consumption and matched with the recorded Kwh reading in dump report. From 05/2016 to 06/2017, the bill revision is needed. As per the above dump (Sl.no.- 4), it is found that, the units advance @ 54 units per hour on Dt.14/07/2017, whose connected load is 10 KW which is quite wrong & not possible. Again during 07/2017 to 12/2017 the meter reading advance has shown 135308 units, i.e. 27061 units per month which is also wrong & quite abnormal. Because the said consumer uses to draw constant load for Airtel tower and he has no scope to draw excess load. Therefore, it is ascertained from dump report that the meter has shown abnormal readings from the month of 06/2017 to 03/2018.

The meter reading furnished by the concerned Junior Manager (Elect.) for the month of 07/2017, 09/2017, 11/2017, 12/2017, 10/2018, 01/2019 did not match with the recorded Kwh reading of dump report. This clearly shows, the bills have been prepared in false readings. The Forum has verified the revised claim bill, which is served, vide letter no-522, Dtd.28.03.2019 and found quite wrong, which is needed to revise as per the following order.

ORDER:-

The opposite party is directed:

1. To cancel the revision order no. - 522, Dtd.28.03.2019 of the S.E (Elect.), BED-III, Southco Utility, Berhampur.

// 5 //

2. to revise the bill of the above complainant a. for the period from 05/2016 to 06/2017, by taking initial meter reading as 76104 (05/2016) and final meter reading as 166455 (06/2017), duly dividing by number of months and duly adding arrears as on 04/2016 and deducting all the payments made by the complainant during the above period. b. for the period from 07/2017 to 07/2019, as per the succeeding 3 months' average consumption of the replacement of new meter (Dt.16.10.2019), on prevailing tariff, in accordance with the clause 97 of the OERC distribution (conditions of supply) code 2004 as amended thereon, duly adding arrear as on 06/2017 and deducting all the payments made by the complainant during the above period. And serve the revised bill to the above complainant within 15 days of receipt of this Order and reflect the same in the billing fold through LTB

3. While revising the bill, the constituent features of billing such as monthly minimum fixed charges, meter rent & % of E.D., changed from time to time, shall be taken into consideration.

4. To check and seal the meter properly, if not already done.

5. A copy of the revised bill, presented to the complainant, as per the final order, should be furnished to this office for compliance.

The complainant is directed to:

1. pay the revised bill within 15 days of receipt of the revised bill from the opposite party, failing which the opposite party has got liberty to disconnect the power supply for non-payment of the dues.

The case is disposed of accordingly. If the complainant is aggrieved with the order of the GRF, then the complainant can go for an appeal before The Ombudsman. Ombudsman-II, Qrs. No- 3R-2(S), GRIDCO colony, P.O: Bhoinagar, Bhubaneswar-751022 (Tel No.0674-2543825 and Fax No.0674-2546264) and if the order of the GRF is not implemented in time by the opposite party, then the complainant is at liberty to file a case under

// 6 //

section 142 of the Act within 30 days from the date of order of the Grievances Redressal Forum before the OERC for execution of said order.=

4. This Writ Petition involves a challenge to the order of the GRF vide Annexure-8.

5. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for Petitioner-licensee taking this Court to the ground of challenge in the Writ Petition highlighted the ground that for the nature of dispute involved therein the GRF had no jurisdiction to entertain such issue and on the other hand, it was open to the consumer to go before the Electrical Inspector for rectification of the defect.

6. On entire reading of the objection of the Petitioner this Court nowhere finds, Petitioner has advanced any such submission before the GRF, but on the other hand it went on contesting on merit as clearly established through the GRF order impugned herein. It is clear that the licensee entering into a contest contested the submission and attempted to justify his action by replying otherwise except the ground of jurisdiction.

7. Considering the submission of Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for Petitioner and looking to the circular no.GRF-1/2004 dated 19th October, 2004, this Court reading through the assignment to the GRF vide clause 2.3 finds, vide (ii) and (vii) therein the GRF is in very much assignment with the issues relating to disconnection / Reconnection of supply as well as Metering, however, with certain exception.

8. It is, in the circumstance, this Court finds, the ground of challenge to the impugned order that the GRF has no jurisdiction to entertain such issue, falls flat for being contrary to the provision contained in OERC (Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004 more particularly in the circular indicated hereinabove. Besides above the issue

// 7 //

remains a technical issue and the GRF constituted with expert personnel has power to entertain such issue. Through the statement prepared at page 33 of the brief there is clear finding by the GRF that billing up to month of April, 2016 has been made correctly and as per actual condition, further there was actual collection and in the circumstance the GRF came to hold, there needs no revision in bill and accordingly, directed to take out the revised bill and to revise the bill in terms of direction vide 2(a)(b), 3, 4 & 5 further with direction for compliance by the consumer. For involvement of technical aspect this Court while declining to interfere in the impugned order, further also holds that for the clear direction in the circumstance stated therein there appears, there is no prejudice to the licensee through the impugned order. This Court thus declines to entertain the issues raised herein.

9. The Writ Petition suffers on merit, which is, hereby, dismissed.

10. If the direction of the GRF has not been worked out as yet, the same should be worked out forthwith. For delay in complying with the order of the GRF, for the licensee holding the GRF order, in case of refund in favour of the consumer, the consumer shall be entitled to interest @ 6% over and above its entitlement from the date of entitlement.

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

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

The 11th day of May, 2023// Ayaskanta Jena, Senior Stenographer

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-May-2023 17:54:40