Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K W.P.(C) No.15418 of 2016 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Maya Devi : Petitioner -Versus- The S.D.O, No.1, RED, WESCO Utility, Rajgangpur & Ors. : Opposite Parties For Petitioner For Opposite Party No.1
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. J.K. Mishra-2 : M/s. P.K. Tripathy, P.K. Mohanty, S. Pattanayak For Opposite Party Nos.2, 3 & 4 : M/s. B.K. Mohanty, R. Mohanty, S.S. Chhualsingh, P.K. Singh For Opposite Party Nos.5 to 8 : None J U D G M E N T CORAM : JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO Date of hearing & Date of Judgment : 20.04.2023 Per Biswanath Rath, J. 1. Heard the submissions of Mr. Mishra-2, learned counsel for Petitioner, Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4. Page 1 of 5 // 2 // 2. Factual background involved herein appears to be; the application of the Petitioner for fresh connection has been turned down on the premises that there has been multiple connections in the same premises and there has also been huge outstanding in respect of the existing connections. Petitioner being aggrieved by such refusal by the license moved GRF vide GRF Case No.390 of 2015 (Annexure-2). The GRF getting into the complaint involved therein came to dismiss the proceeding vide Annexure-2. Being aggrieved the Petitioner here moved the OMBUDSMAN-II vide Consumer Representation Case No.OM(II)(W) -08 of 2016. This proceeding was decided on contest. It appears, the OMBUDSMAN-II finding there are variety of outstanding involving the family members further also involving variety of connections in the same premises, came to allow the application, but subject to condition vide its order / award at page 33. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner brought the present Writ Petition for setting aside of the order of the OMBUDSMAN-II and thereby giving direction as claimed in the prayer. 3. Mr. Mishra-2, learned counsel for Petitioner did not dispute to the admitted fact that there have been multiple connections in the same premises. There is also no denial to the fact that there have been number of connections existing at the time Petitioner applied for fresh connection. He, however, on the premises that Petitioner is not responsible to clear of all the outstanding as the outstanding relates to some other family members, claims, she has a right for fresh power connection to the Petitioner’s premises. 4. Factual narrations further also go to show that the premises are still connected with power, but parties including Petitioner however, managing otherwise. There is also factual aspect revealing intention of Page 2 of 5 // 3 // the Petitioner for another domestic connection. There also appears pendency of a civil dispute between the parties even in inclusion of the Petitioner, who appears to be defendant no.1 in C.S. No.22 of 2013. 5. In his opposition Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 apart from placing reliance of the objection of the licensee before the OMBUDSMAN-II, however, taking this Court to the counter affidavit giving emphasis on the conditions at regulation 13(3) as well as regulation 10 (ii) of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of supply) Code, 2004, submitted that even though they did not resist the direction of the OMBUDSMAN-II in facilitating fresh connection to the Petitioner’s premises, on Petitioner complying with the conditions set therein contends, there is lawful restriction in giving power supply through the above provisions. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel, however, submitted that in the event Petitioner complies with the direction of the OMBUDSMAN-II, there may not be any difficulty in providing the power supply to the Petitioner’s premises by way of fresh connection. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and looking to the undisputed fact recorded hereinabove more particularly looking to the premises having multiple connections through multiple applicants and as Petitioner is one of such applicants, in the given scenario this Court here takes into account the provision of law guiding through Regulation 13(3) and Regulation 10(ii) of the Code, 2004, which reads as follows:- <13(3)No additional power shall be supplied by licensee unless all arrear charges for the existing power supply have either been paid in full or paid in accordance with an instalment facility granted by the licensee for unconditionally paying the arrears within the stipulated time. 10(ii) Where applicant has purchased existing property and connection is lying disconnected, it shall be the duty of the applicant to verify that the previous owner Page 3 of 5 // 4 // has paid all dues to the Licensee and his obtained <no dues certificate= from the Licensee. In case <no dues certificate= is not obtained by the previous owner, the applicant before purchase of property may approach the Engineer of the Licensee for a <no dues certificate=. The Engineer shall acknowledge receipt of such request and shall either intimate in writing outstanding dues, if any, on the premises or issue <no dues certificate= within one month from the date of application. In case the Licensee does not intimate outstanding dues or issue <no dues certificate= within specified time, new connection on the premises shall not be denied on ground of outstanding dues of previous consumer.= 7. It is, in the circumstance and in view of the restriction through the aforesaid provision, this Court finds, Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 is justified in denying fresh connection to the Petitioner’s premises without clearing of the arrear charges involving the same premises. This Court here also finds, in the event the Court accedes to the claim of the Petitioner and directs for providing fresh power supply connection remaining huge arrear outstanding, there would not only be direct financial loss to the licensee, again it would also lead to force the licensee to undertake innumerable litigations landing in litigation costs for realization of huge outstanding. In the prevailing practice this Court observes, this has become a tendency in the consumers while keeping arrears by way of heavy outstanding also apply for new connections; may be it appears, through new applicants, many occasions only to avoid such legal complications. 8. In the circumstance, this Court finds, even though there is difficulty in giving new power supply in spite of restriction through the Regulation 13(3) as well as Regulation 10(ii) of the Code, 2004, however, on perusal of the impugned order it appears, the OMBUDSMAN-II has come to a fair decision. In the process this Court finds no scope for interfering in the Page 4 of 5 // 5 // impugned order. Accordingly while dismissing this Writ Petition, this Court clarifies that in the event Petitioner complies with the direction of the OMBUDSMAN-II vide Annexure-5 by making required deposit at least within 15 days hence, there should be no restriction in providing fresh power connection to the Petitioner’s premises as a new consumer. 9. Writ Petition stands dismissed but with observation hereinabove.
Decision
There is, however, no order as to costs. (M.S. Sahoo) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 20th day of April, 2023// Ayaskanta Jena, Senior Stenographer (Biswanath Rath) Judge Page 5 of 5