Exe.Engineerelect v. Deepa Banerjee

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.11288 of 2013 Executive Engineer (Electrical), Central Electricity Supply Utility of Orissa, City Distribution Division No.1, Ranihat, Cuttack ....

Petitioner Mr. D. R. Ray, Advocate -versusDeepa Banerjee ....

Opposite Party

CORAM:

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

ORDER

29.07.2022 11.

1. In view of the order passed today in CMAPL No.290 of 2021, the present writ petition is restored.

2. The challenge in the present petition by the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Central Electricity Supply Utility of Orissa, City Distribution Division No.1 is to an order dated 6th March 2013 passed by the OMBUDSMAN-I in Consumer Representation Case No.OM (I)-79 of 2012. By the impugned order, the OMBUDSMAN has directed the present Petitioner re-work the electricity bill issued to the Opposite Party for the period from April 2009 to December 2012 treating the consumption as 160 units per month and 2 KW load.

3. The operative portion of the impugned order of the OMBUDSMAN in para-7 notes that although a new meter was installed on 17th March 2012 "strangely enough no bill has been

issued as per actual meter reading till 10th January 2013, but average bill 505 units per month has been issued."

4. When a specific query was posed to the learned counsel for the Petitioner as to why an average reading was being applied despite the meter being a new one, there was no convincing answer except to say that this was perhaps a mistake on the part of the Department.

5. In the circumstances, on the factual aspect, the Court is unable to find the OMBUDSMAN having committed any error in requiring the Petitioner to revise the bill by treating the consumption as 160 units per month on the basis of the earlier reading.

6. The Court therefore finds no merit in the present writ petition and it is dismissed as such.

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