E.E.Electrical v. Grievance Redressal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.21105 of 2013 Executive Engineer (Electrical), Khurda Electrical Division, CESU, Khurda ....

Petitioner Mr. D. R. Ray, Advocate -versusGrievance Redressal Forum, CESU, Bhubaneswar and others ....

Opposite Parties

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY Order No.

ORDER

29.07.2022 06.

1. In view of the order passed today in CMAPL No.291 of 2021, the present writ petition is restored.

2. The challenge by the Executive Engineer (Electrical), CESU is to an order dated 27th February 2013 of the OMBUDSMAN No. I, Bhubaneswar allowing the petition filed by Opposite Party No.3 and directing the present Petitioner to treat the maximum demand of Opposite Party No.3's Unit as 25KW from April 2012 to March 2013 and accordingly revise the bill.

3. The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that instead of straightaway approaching the CESU itself for its grievance regarding the correctness of the electricity bill, Opposite Party No.3 first went before the GRF, Khurda and thereafter, before the OMBUDSMAN.

4. The above fora have been created only to resolve the disputes between the consumers and the distribution companies and in this instance that is precisely what Opposite Party No.3 has done. The OMBUDSMAN's impugned order has turned purely on facts. A detailed order has been passed discussing the entire materials threadbare and the findings have been rendered in light of the applicable provisions. No grounds have been made out for interference.

5. In the circumstances, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the OMBUDSMAN. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (B.P. Routray) Judge S.K. Guin