Biswajit Mondal v. Wbsedcl And ORS.

S/L. 14.

September 15, 2022.

MNS.

WPA No. 20842 of 2022 Biswajit Mondal Vs.

The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and others Md. Kutubuddin ... for the petitioner.

Mrs. Rituparna Maitra ...for the WBSEDCL.

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, at the time of filing of the writ petition, had two-fold grievances:

First, that the petitioner's previous electricity meter, supplying electricity for operation of the petitioner's submersible pump, had been burnt and was not being replaced despite request by the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL).

Secondly, the petitioner's electricity bills are being inflated, for which the petitioner seeks redressal.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, fairly submits that day before yesterday, the first grievance has been redressed by the WBSEDCL by replacing the burnt meter with a new meter. However, the billing dispute, it is submitted, still remains.

Learned counsel appearing for the WBSEDCL controverts such allegations and submits that there is no scope for raising any billing dispute. Moreover, in view of the installation of the new meter, the billed amount may also vary now.

That apart, it is contended that the Regional Grievance Redressal Officer (RGRO) is the appropriate authority in law to decide billing disputes.

There is substance in the contention of learned counsel for the WBSEDCL inasmuch as the law provides that the competent authority to decide billing disputes is the RGRO having jurisdiction.

Hence, WPA No. 20842 of 2022 is disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to approach the concerned RGRO having territorial jurisdiction over the area-in-question.

If so approached, the RGRO shall give an opportunity of representation/hearing to the petitioner as well as all others concerned, including the WBSEDCL, and pass a reasoned order deciding such issue in accordance with law. The entire exercise ought to be completed by the RGRO within six weeks from the date of reference of the dispute by the petitioner.

It is made clear that the merits of the dispute raised in the present writ petition have not been entered into by this Court.

Since no affidavits have been invited from any of the respondents, it is deemed that the respondents have not admitted any of the allegations made in the writ petition.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)