Sk. Matiur Rahaman v. The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. And ORS.

M/L. 37.

October 9, 2023.

MNS.

WPA No. 23605 of 2023 Sk. Matiur Rahaman Vs.

The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and others Mr. Bhagbat Chaudhuri, Mr. Mahbub Asfakul Zinna ... for the petitioner.

Mr. Srijan Nayek, Mrs. Rituparna Maitra ...for the WBSEDCL.

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

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had raised a billing dispute which the Regional Grievance Redressal Officer (RGRO) decided against the petitioner, for which the petitioner has challenged the same before the Ombudsman.

Such challenge was rejected by the Ombudsman only on the ground that draft settlement order and the final order were not found attached in duplicate.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite his best efforts, the

petitioner could not obtain copies of the orders of the RGRO.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. In view of the nature of the prayer, it is only appropriate that the Ombudsman hears out the matter afresh, subject to compliance of all formalities by the petitioner.

6. The RGRO is required to hand over copies of the draft settlement order and the final order of the said authority to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, WPA No. 23605 of 2023 is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 4, that is, the Regional Grievance Redressal Officer, Murshidabad Region, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, to furnish to the petitioner copies of the draft settlement order and final order passed by the said authority in connection with the grievance raised by the petitioner, subject to compliance of all formalities by the petitioner in that regard, within three weeks from the date of communication of this order to the RGRO.

8. The petitioner shall, thereafter, furnish the said orders before the Ombudsman. Upon such orders being furnished, the Ombudsman shall take up the challenge of the petitioner on

merits and decide the same in accordance with law upon giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned preferably within two months from the furnishing of such copies of the orders.

9. The rejection of the petitioner's challenge by the Ombudsman dated August 22, 2023 is hereby set aside in the light of the above observations.

10. There will be no order as to costs.

11. 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.)