Orissa High Court
Sub-Divisional Officer (Electrical) vs Tarachand Bag .... Opposite Party on 21 April, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.5233 of 2025
Sub-Divisional Officer (Electrical) .... Petitioners
TPWODL and another
Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate
-Versus-
Tarachand Bag .... Opposite Party
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 21.04.2025
No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through virtual mode.
2. Heard Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. No notice is issued to the opposite party as the matter is
disposed of at the stage of admission.
4. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging
the impugned judgment as at Annexure-5 passed in connection with
CC No.139 of 2024 by the learned DCDRC, Sambalpur on the
grounds stated therein.
5. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that a show case was filed before the learned Commission
challenging the maintainability of the complaint as per Annexure-4
series with the plea that billing disputes are not entertainable in
view of the Court's order in W.P.(C) No.1704 of 2020 in the case
of Executive Engineer, South Co Vrs. Sakuntala Behera, however, it
was not discussed and was followed by the impugned judgment i.e.
Annexure-5. The contention of Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel is that
in view of such an objection on maintainability of the proceeding, it
was for learned DCDRC, Sambalpur to frame a preliminary issue
instead of disposing of the complaint finally, hence, therefore, the
impugned judgment i.e. Annexure-5 is liable to be set aside.
6. In so far as the case at hand is concerned, it relates to a
billing dispute raised by the opposite party. Mr. Tripathy, learned
counsel for the petitioners refers to the Circular issued by the OERC
in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 4(2) read with
Regulation 15 of the OERC (Grievances Redressal Forum and
Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004 with the submission that all such
grievances including the billing disputes are to be considered by the
Grievance Redressal Forums (GRFs) established by the distribution
licensee operating in the State in their respective areas. The Court
finds that such an objection was raised by the petitioners with a
reply and response as per Annexure-4 series with reference to the
order dated 16th May, 2023 in Sakuntala Behera (supra). On a bare
reading of the impugned judgment as at Annexure-5, the Court
further finds that there has been no such decision on maintainability
of the complaint even though a written statement was filed
challenging adjudication of the dispute by the Commission in view
of the Circular i.e. Annexure-1 and particularly, Clause 2.3 thereof,
wherein, it is stipulated that subject to the provisions of the
Electricity Act, 2003, Rules, Regulations and notifications made
thereunder, the Forums shall generally dispose of the complaints
relating to defects or deficiencies in electrical services as defined in
the Regulations with illustrations of the nature of the complaints
mentioned therein. In fact, sub-clause (v) of Clause 2.3 of the
Circular i.e. Annexure-1 relates to billing disputes except penal bills
under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to be duly taken
cognizance of for a decision by the GRFs. As there has been an
objection as per Annexure-4 series and learned DCDRC, Sambalpur
does not appear to have taken judicial notice of the same nor any
preliminary issue was framed earlier, the Court is of the view that it
needs a remand for a revisit and a decision in that regard keeping in
view the Circular i.e. Annexure-1 dated 19th October, 2004. In other
words, the Court is inclined to intervene and interfere with the
impugned judgment dated 4th November, 2024 as at Annexure-5
for a fresh decision on maintainability of the complaint in the first
place in view of the Circular of the OERC referred herein above.
7. Accordingly, it is directed.
8. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a
direction to consider the objection of the petitioners in CC No.139
of 2024 on the maintainability of the same, which is, hence,
directed to be restored to file for a decision by learned DCDRC,
Sambalpur. As a necessary corollary, the impugned judgment as at
Annexure-5 passed therein is hereby set aside with the direction as
aforesaid to be complied at the earliest. In the circumstances,
however, there is no order as to costs.
9. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Signature NotTUDU
Verified
Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC,CTC
Date: 22-Apr-2025 17:08:30
