The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6349 of 2019 The Executive Engineer, Berhampur Electrical Division No.III, SOUTHCO, Ganjam …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Sr. Adv. along with associates -versus- M/s. Vinayak Agro and Paddy Processor at Sihala, Ganjam & Anr. …. Opposite Parties Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Sreejit Mohanty, Adv. for O.P.1 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. 04. ORDER 20.06.2024 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the award dated 19.08.2015/Annexure-4 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Ganjam in PLA Case No.100 of 2015. 3. Factual scenario of the case as well as submissions on behalf of the parties in brevity remains:- (i) In order to avail the power supply to run her Medium Industry, the proprietor of the Opposite Party No.1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Jun-2024 17:33:44 applied for electricity connection to her industrial unit. As there was no proper system to supply electricity to the industry of the Petitioner by the erstwhile electricity Page 1 of 5 Company, the Opposite Party No.1 as per the provision of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 was required to bear a portion of charges/expenses incurred for installation of the system, on remunerative basis. (ii) The estimated cost towards such remunerative charges was fixed tentatively at a sum of Rs.3,12,187/-. As per the provision, upon completion of work the documents i.e. vouchers/bills, purchase orders and materials etc. were required to be provided by the concerned consumer to show the expenses of funds utilized for setting up of such supply line. (iii) It is pertinent to mention here that as per the provision at Regulation 13, it is the obligation of the licensee to supply power and recover the expenditure. In the event new construction of structure and Sub-Station are required for supply of electricity to a single beneficiary, which requires a huge investment, a portion of the expenses for installation of such system is required to be borne by the particular consumer, which would be adjusted in phased manner in the subsequent electricity billing upon submission of vouchers/purchase orders etc. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Jun-2024 17:33:44 but not later than 24 months. (iv) At this juncture, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that after availing the power supply the Opposite Party No.1 neither provided Page 2 of 5 required documents like the materials/ vouchers / purchase order etc. in order to prove the expenses, nor cleared the electricity dues in time. However, the Opposite Party No.1, on the other hand, filed an application under Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 before the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Ganjam at Berhampur vide PLA Case No.100/2015 on the premises of “Deficiency in Service”. In the said application the Opposite Party No.1 had made an allegation of non- disbursement of the remunerative charges in her favour in terms of the provision at Regulation 13. Hence, she had prayed therein for refund of a sum of Rs.3,12,187/- with interest. (v) Thereafter, on being served with notice the Petitioner being the respondent therein, filed its written statement under Section 22 (C) (3) (a) of the Legal Services Authorities Act. (vi) Looking to the written statement and considering the submissions of both the parties, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Ganjam at Berhampur while disposing of the above noted PLA Case on 19th August, 2015, passed the following award:- Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Jun-2024 17:33:44 “ AWARD The Application filed under Section 22 C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 be and the same is allowed on merit in terms sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 22 C of the said Act against the respondent Page 3 of 5 there being “Deficiency in service” within the meaning of Sec. 22 A (b) (iii) of the LSA Act. It is hereby ordered that the “questioned scheme” when found to be a “Remunerative one”, the Respondent-Executive Engineer shall extend that benefit so for deprived to the applicant-consumer in terms of Regulation-13 (1) of the OERC Distribution (conditions of supply) Code, 2004 read with the entries inserted in Appendix-I annexed thereto. Such benefit being not extended in terms of Regulation-11(iii) by the Executive Engineer without reasonable cause and lawful excuse, such amount which comes to Rs.3,12,187/- shall be refunded with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment. Alternatively, such amount shall be adjusted from the bill from October, 2015 onwards but without interest. However, no compensation is imposed to prove further opportunity to the Respondent-Executive Engineer not to statutory to act contrary provisions in future. Parties shall bear their own cost.” (vii) Challenging the above award dated 19th August, 2015 learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that while adjudicating the above noted PLA Case, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat should have gone into the documents i.e. bills, vouchers and purchase order etc. But, without looking to the same the learned Permanent Lok Adalat went ahead with the matter by fixing an approximate amount. (viii) To the contrary, learned counsel for the Opposite Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Jun-2024 17:33:44 Party No.1 submits that though the award has been passed in the year 2015 the Petitioner has challenged the same in the year 2019, which is also barred by law. Hence, this Writ Petition is not maintainable. Page 4 of 5 (ix) He further submits that since the Opposite Party No.1 had submitted all the documents i.e. bills, vouchers and purchase order etc. before the authority concerned for adjustment of the same in the monthly electricity bill, she could not produce the same at the relevant point of time. Hence, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat in order to cut short the litigation fixed an approximate amount to the tune of Rs.3,12,187/-. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has passed the award dated 19th August, 2015 appropriately, which warrants no interference of this Court. This Court, therefore, declines to interfere in the impugned order. 5. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Ayaskanta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Jun-2024 17:33:44 (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Page 5 of 5