Executive Engineer vs Ombudsman-Ii And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 12045 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               W.P.(C) No.21579 of 2017

            Executive Engineer, Ganjam North        ....             Petitioner
            Electrical Division, Southco

                                          Mr. P. Mohanty, Senior Advocate
                                        -versus-

            Ombudsman-II and another                ....     Opposite Parties

                                             Mr. F.R. Mohapatra, Advocate

                    CORAM:
                                JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
                                        ORDER

05.10.2023 Order No.

09. 1. Mr. Mohanty, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of

petitioner and submits, his client is licensee. Opposite party no.2 is the

consumer. Impugned is judgment dated 7th June, 2017 made by the

Ombudsman on being moved by the consumer.

2. Fact of the matter is, there was defect in metering electricity

consumed upon enhancement of the load, applied for an obtained.

Regulation 97 in Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC)

Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 is applicable.

Regulation 97 is reproduced below.

// 2 //

"97. Billing with Defective Meter- For the period the meter remained defective or was lost, the billing shall be done on the basis of average meter reading for the consecutive three billing periods succeeding the billing period in which the detect or loss was noticed. It shall be presumed that use of electricity through defective meter was continuing for a period of three months immediately preceding the date of inspection in case of Domestic and Agricultural consumers and for a period of six months immediately preceding the date of Inspection for all other categories of consumers, unless the onus is rebutted by the person, occupier or possessor of such premises or place."

3. Drawing attention to direction 3 in operative part of impugned

judgment, Mr. Mohanty submits, clarification is necessary on the

direction.

4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of the

consumer. On query from Court he submits, it is under regulation 97

that clause 3 in operative part of the impugned judgment was made.

He opposes the writ petition. He relies on view taken by a Division

Bench of this Court on judgment dated 31st March, 2023 in, inter

alia, W.P.(C) no.2338 of 2015 [The Executive Engineer (Electrical),

CESU, Puri v. Sri Fagubhusan Parida and another], paragraphs 35

and 36.

// 3 //

5. It appears from direction clause 3, petitioner was directed to

revise bills of the consumer for preceding six months from date of

inspection made on 23rd July, 2015. For purpose of revising the bills

petitioner has to follow regulation 97. Bills for succeeding six months

are to be taken into consideration for obtaining average billing on

them, to ascertain the difference between them and average bill

amount paid on the preceding six months bills. Accordingly the

direction by clause 3 is to be complied with for revising bills of the

preceding six months from date of the inspection.

6. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

(S.S. Mishra) Judge Jyoti

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 05-Oct-2023 17:23:29