The High Court
Case Details
A.F.R. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 6291 of 2016 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. --------------------- Executive Engineer (Electrical), NESCO Utility of Odisha, Kuakhia Electrical Division, Kuakhia, Dist-Jajpur ……. Petitioner -Versus- Ombudsman-II of Electricity, P.O.Bhoinagar, Janpath, Bhubaneswar & another …..… Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr. S.C. Dash, Advocate For Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate ------------------ P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO A N D ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing : 26.04.2023 Date of Judgment: 08.05.2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- M.S. Sahoo, J Brief Facts The petitioner-distribution company, who has stepped into the shoes of erstwhile distribution licensee i.e., the Northern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (NESCO) represented through the Executive Engineer at present the Executive Engineer (Electrical) TP North Odisha Distribution Limited (TPNODL), Kuakhia Electrical Division, in the district of Jajpur has Page 1 of 20 -2- challenged the Order/Award dated 09.04.2015 passed by the Ombudsman-II of Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC) in Consumer Representation Case No.47 of 2014 stating the said award/order to be illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and without jurisdiction. 2. In the writ petition, it has been averred that a subject matter of dispute as per instruction is partly pending before this Court in W.P.(C) No.25586 of 2014 against the brother of opposite party no.2 relating to the self-same issues arising out of Power Supply from the very same Transformer. The said writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.25586 of 2014 filed by the distribution company challenging the order of Grievance Redressal Forum (hereinafter, ‘GRF’ for short), Jajpur Road dated 25.06.2014 in C.C. No.26 of 2014 has been dismissed by this Court by judgment
Legal Reasoning
dated 19.04.2023, confirming the order of the GRF. 3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner-electricity distribution licensee that though the writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.25586 of 2012 has been dismissed on merits, still the present writ petition would survive, the prayer and contention raised by the parties being different. Accordingly, the present writ petition is heard and dealt with on its merit, for the conclusions that would follow in the present adjudication. Page 2 of 20 -3- 4. The petitioner licensee entered into an agreement dated 22.12.1999 with the opposite party-consumer for supplying electrical energy to the premises of the consumer. Though the said agreement has not been annexed to the writ petition, a copy of the agreement has been filed along with memo signed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 26.04.2023, which indicates that the agreement was for supply of Contract Demand of 37 Kilo Watt (KW). The petitioner licensee gave the power supply from 100 KVA-11/0.4 KV
Legal Reasoning
transformer which was meant for one consumer Sri Harshabardhan Jena, who is the consumer-opposite party in W.P.(C) No. 25586 of 2014 wherein the GRF, JajpurRoad by order dated 25.06.2014 in Consumer Complaint No. 26 of 2014 has allowed the prayer of the consumer and the order passed by the GRF has been already confirmed by this Court. Proceeding before the GRF 5. The prayer made before the GRF are quoted herein : “For the interest of justice and equity the Hon’ble Forum may graciously be pleased to direct the Respondent to: 1. Bill the petition on LT tariff and revise all bills raised on HT tariff and also withdraw bill on transformer loss. 2. Withdraw over drawal penalty and refund back with interest to the petitioner.” Page 3 of 20 -4- 5.1 The case of the opp.party-consumer, who was the petitioner before the GRF in brief can be stated as follows : (i) dates of agreements between the distribution company and the consumer-opposite party are 22.12.1999 and 3.1.2007. (ii) the consumer was allotted with consumer number 1851(N), was supplied with power from 100 KVA transformer which is meant for one Shri Harshabardhan Jena with consumer number 1592(N). The petitioner is low tension (LT) consumer as per agreement in force under Section 76(1)(a) of the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission, Distribution (conditions of supply) Code, 2004 (herein after in short, ‘Code, 2004’). He is illegally charged with transformer loss and billed as High Tension (HT) consumer. It was stated earlier by order dated 10.12.2012 in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 356 of 2012 the GRF had directed : “xxx The O.P. is directed to take immediate fresh necessary step agreement with as the initial/subsequent power supply period of 5 years has expired since the execution of last agreement.” for execution of a complainant 5.2 It was contended that the petitioner being a consumer of Low Tension i.e. 400 Volt with load of 37 Page 4 of 20 -5- Kilo Watt (KW) as per agreement dated 03.01.2007, he cannot be charged as High Tension (HT) consumer in contravention of the Code, 2004. It was further contended by the consumer that the HT consumer will be billed on transformer loss on temporary period if he avails power supply from own transformer from a LT meter, the consumer-complainant before GRF, is neither a HT consumer nor he is availing power supply from his own substation. The collection of transformer loss and imposition of HT tariff is illegal and attracts section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1992. The tariff orders for LT(M) tariff and HT(M) tariff are different. Such tariff for financial year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 are as per Annexure-B of tariff order. 5.3 By filing an additional petition, the consumer prayed before the GRF the following : “i). Bill the petitioner on LT tariff and revise all bills raised on HT tariff and also withdraw bill on transformer loss. ii). Withdraw overdrawal penalty and refund back with interest to the petitioner. iii) Revise the bills on demand charges as per tariff orders. iv) Refund the meter rent which is collected above v) the landed cost of the meter. Refund the amount collected Rs.250/- per month the petitioner is a LT consumer. towards customer charges as vi) Revise the bill for 09/200 on ‘0’ consumption. AND vii) As an interim order the Respondent may be directed to reconnect the Power Supply by Page 5 of 20 -6- collecting Rs.15,000/- against the arrear dues of Rs.1,16,669/-.” 6. The contentions of the petitioner distribution company/opposite party before the GRF have been noted in detail by the learned GRF. The said contentions are reproduced herein : that the Hon’ble Forum “1. Against the para-1 of the prayer of the petitioner regarding the billing on LT tariff instead of HT tariff and withdrawn of transformer loss, it is the submitted before petitioner had filed the same objection before the forum vide C.C.No.356 of 2012 after hearing both the parties, the Forum was passed the order on the above matter as follows :- “The bill served to the petitioner is in accordance with the prevailing Regulations, tariff order, initial power supply agreement executed on dated 22.12.1999, affidavit and under taking submitted by the petitioner and therefore needs no correction.” 2. Prayer regarding over drawal penalty is not acceptable now, because Hon’ble High Court of Odisha issued stay order regarding the above matter in the case matter of Executive Engineer (Elect.), AFD, Anandapur v. GRF, Jajpur Road, Ombudsman II, Bhubaneswar and M/s. Tarani Stone Crusher, Anandapur. So we may wait for decision of the Hon’ble High court of Odisha. Prayer regarding levy of demand charges not 3. acceptable now, because Hon’ble High Court of Odisha has issued stay order regarding the above matter in the case matter of Executive Engineer (Elect), JED, Joda v. M/s. Flexi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. So we may wait for the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha. Regarding the refund of meter rent collected 4. above the landed cost of the meter, it is submitted Page 6 of 20 -7- before the Hon’ble Forum that, there was no excess amount collected towards the meter rent from the petitioner.” 7. The learned GRF after considering rival submissions and pleadings of the parties passed the following order dated 05.09.2014 : “The members of GRF are of the opinion that the petition filed by the petitioner has merit on two counts (as per para-2 and para-3 under OBSERVATION head) i.e., on (i) Refund of excess amount collected towards overdrawal penalty and (ii) Refund of excess amount collected towards meter rent. Hence, the opposite party is directed: The overdrawal penalty will be kept as it is and will be settled as per the decision of Hon’ble High Court, Odisha, and To refund back the excess amount collected towards meter rent over and above landed cost of meter if any.” (i) (ii) Proceeding before the Ombudsman 8. The order passed by the learned GRF was challenged by the opposite party-consumer before the learned Ombudsman-II, OERC, Odisha registered as Consumer Representation Case No. 47 of 2014. 8.1 The petitioner-distribution company filed its counter. Ombudsman having taken note of the pleadings of the parties and materials on record, considering the same in detail made the following discussion : “During December, 1999 Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena entered into an agreement to avail power supply with contract demand of 37KW from 100KVA transformer owned by another consumer Sri Harasbardhan Jena, Page 7 of 20 -8- to the rules affidavit, agreement, is handed over who is his brother in this regard, both the consumers have furnished affidavit to share the transformer and repair the same in case of fault. Further both the parties agrees by way of undertaking to share the transformer loss equally irrespective of consumption from the same transformer i.e. 365 units each. This forum do not want to look into the bills for the previous period as the bills are prepared based on the undertaking, and regulations in force. The licensee has committed a mistake by extending supply to two consumers from the transformer owned by one consumer. In such case HT meter can not be installed so long as two consumers are there on the transformer. Both the consumers can be billed on LT tariff provided the transformer licensee. Alternatively the petitioner can be billed on LT tariff provided he is extended supply from LT network of the licensee and executes agreement for the same. Alternatively since the metering is at LT side the petitioner may be billed at LT tariff prospectively i.e., from May 2015 onwards. As regard to withdrawal of overdrawal charges, it is worth to mention Regulation-64 of OERC Code, 2004 which stipulates that contract demand for a connected load below 110 KVA shall be same as connected load. However, installation with static meter/meter with provision of recording demand, the recorded demand rounded to nearest 0.5 KW shall be considered as requiring no contract demand verification. Further the tariff order for the year 2013- 14 at para-344 reads as below: The billing demand in respect of consumers with contract demand of less than 110KVA having static meters should be the highest demand recorded in the meter during the financial year irrespective of connected load which shall require no verification. The highest demand recorded should continue from the month it occur till the end of financial year for billing purpose. From the above stipulations it is observed that in the tariff order there is no provision to claim overdrawal penalty for the consumers with contract demand less than 110KVA. But order dated 22.6.2013 passed in case of in Page 8 of 20 -9- Case No.130/2013 by GRF, Jajpur Road for withdrawal of overdrawl penalty has been stayed by Hon’ble High Court of Odisha vide W.P.(C) No.2154 of 2014 & Misc. Case Noi.2112 of 2014. Hence this Forum feels not to proceed further in this case. The consumer has requested to revise demand charges as per different tariff orders of Hon’ble OERC issue of demand charges/MMFC is under subjudice before the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha vide W.P.(C) No.10153 of 2014. The above issue will be resolved in accordance with the order of Hon’ble High Court of Odisha.” 9. The order/award of the Ombudsman dated 09.04.2015 is reproduced below : “ORDER/AWARD 1. Both the consumers can be billed on LT tariff provided the transformer is handed over to the licensee. or The petitioner can be billed on LT tariff provided he is extended supply form LT network of the licensee & executes agreement for the same. Or Since the metering is at LT side the petitioner may be billed at LT tariff prospectively i.e. with effect from 5/2015 onwards. 2. The claim towards overdrawal penalty & demand charges will be settled as per the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha.
Decision
The case is disposed of and closed.” 10. Submissions Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. Referring to the pleadings in the writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-licensee to collect transformer loss though the Page 9 of 20 -10- consumer is billed at LT tariff, the consumers having Consumer Nos.1851(N) and 1592(N) being brothers are to be treated as one consumer so that the distribution licensee can treat them to be the consumer of a single transformer and the fact the transformer supplying to two different consumers is to be ignored. It is submitted that the Ombudsman has arrived at a conclusion upon erroneous appreciation of the of the case like HT meter cannot be installed to avail power to two consumers from one transformer belonging to themselves. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that after dismissal of the writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.25586 of 2014 by judgment dated 19.04.2023, the present writ petition would not survive in view of the fact that order of the GRF dated 25.06.2014 passed in C.C. No.26 of 2014 has been confirmed by this Court upon dismissal of the writ petition challenging the same. It is submitted that the petitioner having failed to bring to the notice of the Court any error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by the Ombudsman, the Court may not interfere with the order. Counsel for opposite party no.2 also contended that Ombudsman being authority competent technically to decide the issue this Court should not interfere with the order as no such case is made out by the licensee. Analysis & Conclusion 12. Regulations 93(3) & 54 (3) of the Code, 2004 provide as follows : Page 10 of 20 -11- “Regulation-93 (9) : Transformer Loss-In the case of High Tension Supply, if HT metering set can not be readily provided and installed. LT metering set, will be added the average losses in the transformers calculated as follows : “(a) Energy loss in transformer in units per month=(730 x rating of the transformer in KVA)/100. (b) Demand loss in transformer in KVA –One percent of the rating of the transformer in KVA.” 54(3). In the case of all new high-tension supplies, HT metering units shall be provided and installed. In case where LT metering unit is provided at L.T. side, all L.T. metering units shall be converted to H.T. metering units. For existing L.T. metering units connected on the L.T. side of the consumer’s transformers, the reading of such metering units, shall be added with the losses the transformers calculated as below: average in (a) Energy loss in transformer in units per month = (730 X rating of the transformer in KVA) /100, (b) Demand loss in transformer in KVA = One percent of the rating of the transformer in KVA” 13. Agreement entered into between the petitioner- distribution licensee and consumer did not form part of the present petition as annexure. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner-licensee produced a photo copy of agreement dated 22.12.1999 which is taken on record. For reasons best known to the petitioner, subsequent agreement dated 03.01.2007 for type of electricity supply at 400 volt with a load of 37 Kilo Watt (KW) has not been produced. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and other consumer Page 11 of 20 -12- Shri Harshabardhan Jena being brothers, though having different consumer numbers, i.e. 1851(N) & 1592(N) should be treated as one consumer. In considered opinion of this Court, such contention without any statutory backing or bereft of any supporting notification from the OERC that “brothers” with different consumer numbers have to be treated as one consumer, has to be rejected. 14. There is no denial in the pleadings of the distribution licensee before the learned GRF and learned Ombudsman that in fact there was an agreement dated 03.01.2007 for supply of electricity is at 400 volt, i.e. LT with load of 37 KW and also the applicability of the Regulations 93(9) & 54(3) of Code, 2004. The interpretation sought by the licensee to be imparted to the Regulations 93(9) & 54(3) of the Code, 2004 justifying the action of the distribution-licensee is not correct in view of the fact that the consumer-opposite party no.2 entered into an agreement dated 03.01.2007 for supply of electricity at 400 volt i.e. LT and the consumer was billed by imposing LT tariff at a rate higher than HT rate as per tariff fixed by the OERC for the year 2012-13 & 2013-14. 15. The Electricity tariff notified by OERC for financial year 2012-13 and 2013-14, reproduced by the GRF and Ombudsman in their respective orders/award, indicates that the LT tariff is more than HT tariff. The said fact has nowhere been denied by the distribution licensee before the GRF or the Ombudsman. An effort has been made by the distribution licensee by raising an argument that “the Page 12 of 20 -13- consumer was billed at "LT side”, without denying that consumer was billed at LT tariff. Very conspicuously, the distribution licensee has avoided to answer before the GRF and Ombudsman regarding the contention that LT tariff imposed on the consumer at a higher rate and that the said tariff already factors in the transformer loss. As a matter of fact there is no denial before any forum or this Court regarding the assertions that the consumer was billed on LT tariff at a rate higher than HT tariff. 16. The petitioner-licensee has conceded that it did not instal any HT meter as contemplated in the agreement in terms of the Code 2004. Assuming that there was an agreement for supply of HT that was to be billed by HT meter at HT tariff, the reasons of billing the consumer by LT tariff by installing LT meter has been most conveniently avoided to be answered by the licensee in the proceedings before the GRF, before the Ombudsman as well as in the present writ petition before this Court. 17. It would be apt to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11095 of 2018 (GMR WARORA Energy Limited v. Central Electricity Regultory Commission (CERC) & others) : decided on 20.04.2023. Regarding “concurrent finding of fact” in GMR (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows (paragraphs-127. 129 and 130) : Concurrent Finding of Fact 127. Apart from the aforesaid issues, there is one another common thread in all these appeals. Many of Page 13 of 20 -14- these appeals arise out of concurrent findings recorded by the Central/State Electricity Regulatory Commissions and the learned APTEL. (supra), after considering 128. This Court, in the case of MSEDCL v. APML & Ors.a the statutory provisions in the Electricity Act, 2003, held that the CERC, SERCs and the learned APTEL are bodies consisting of experts in the field. 129. This Court, in the said case, observed thus: “120. It could thus be seen that two expert bodies i.e. the CERC and the learned APTEL have concurrently held, after examining the material on record, that the factors of SHR and GCV should be considered as per the Regulations or actuals, whichever is lower. The CERC as well as the State Regulatory bodies, after extensive consultation with the stakeholders, had in respective Tariff specified is Regulations. concerned, the CEA has opined that the margin of 85-100 kcal/kg for a non-pit head station may be considered as a loss of GCV measured at wagon top till the point of firing of coal in boiler. insofar as GCV the SHR norms In addition, 121. In this respect, we may refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Reliance Infrastructure Limited v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 3 SCC 352]. “38. MERC is an expert body which is entrusted with the duty and function to frame regulations, including the terms and conditions for the determination of tariff. The Court, while exercising its power of judicial review, can step in where a case of manifest unreasonableness or arbitrariness is made out. Similarly, where the delegate of the legislature has failed to follow statutory procedures or to take into account factors which it is mandated by the statute to consider or has founded its determination of tariffs in the on extraneous considerations, the Court exercise of its power of judicial review will ensure that the statute is not breached. However, it is no Page 14 of 20 -15- part of the function of the Court to substitute its own determination for a determination which was made by an expert body after due consideration of material circumstances. 39. In Assn. of Industrial Electricity Users v. State of A.P. [Assn. of Industrial Electricity Users v. State of A.P., (2002) 3 SCC 711] b three-Judge Bench of this Court dealt with the fixation of tariffs and held thus : (SCC p. 717, para 11) “11. We also agree with the High Court [S. Bharat Kumar v. State of A.P., 2000 SCC OnLine AP 565 : (2000) 6 ALD 217] that the judicial review in a matter with regard to fixation of tariff has not to be as that of an appellate authority in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. followed the Commission has All that the High Court has to be satisfied with is that the proper procedure and unless it can be demonstrated that its decision is on the face of it arbitrary or illegal or contrary to the Act, the court will not interfere. Fixing a tariff and providing for cross-subsidy is essentially a matter of policy and normally a court would refrain from interfering with a policy decision unless the power exercised is arbitrary or ex facie bad in law.” xxx xxx xxx 123. Recently, the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1] has held that the interfering with the Courts should be slow decisions taken by the experts in the field and unless it is found that the expert bodies have failed to take into statutory provisions or the decisions taken are based on extraneous considerations or they are ex facie arbitrary and illegal, it will not be appropriate for this Court to substitute its views with that of the expert bodies.” the mandatory consideration in 130. As is indicated in the aforesaid judgments, this the Court should be slow concurrent findings of fact unless they are found to interfering with in Page 15 of 20 -16- be perverse, arbitrary and either in ignorance of or contrary to the statutory provisions. [Emphasis supplied] 18. It is worth noting and referring to “epilogue” as given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GMR (supra) is reproduced herein below : “ VI. EPILOGUE 169. Before we part with the judgment, we must note that we have come across several appeals in the present batch which arise out of concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two statutory bodies having expertise in the field. We have also found that in some of the matters, the appeals have been filed only for the sake of filing the same. We also find that several rounds of litigation have taken place in some of the proceedings. 170. Recently, this Court, in the case of MSEDCL v. APML & Ors.a (supra), has noted that one of the reasons for enacting the Electricity Act, 2003 was that the performance of the Electricity Boards had deteriorated on account of various factors. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Electricity Act, 2003 would reveal that one of the main features for enactment of the Electricity Act was delicensing of generation and freely permitting captive generation. In the said judgment, we have recorded the statement of the learned Attorney General made in the case of Energy Watchdog (supra) that the electricity sector, having been privatized, had largely fulfilled the object sought to be achieved by the Electricity Act. He had stated that delicensed electricity generation resulted in production of far greater electricity than was earlier produced. The learned Attorney General had further urged the Court not to disturb the delicate balance sought to be achieved by the Electricity Act, i.e. that the producers or generators of electricity, in order that they set up power plants, be entitled to a reasonable margin of profit and a reasonable return on their Page 16 of 20 -17- capital, so that they are induced to set up more and more power plants. At the same time, the interests of the end consumers also need to be protected. 171. However, we find that, in spite of this position, litigations after litigations are pursued. Though the concurrent orders of statutory expert bodies cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary or in violation of the statutory provisions, the same are challenged. xx xx xx 176. We find that, when the PPA itself provides a mechanism for payment of compensation on the ground of ‘Change in Law’, unwarranted litigation, which wastes the time of the Court as well as adds to the ultimate cost of electricity consumed by the end consumer, ought to be avoided. Ultimately, the huge cost of litigation on the part of DISCOMS as well as the Generators adds to the cost of electricity that is supplied to the end consumers. xx xx xx 178. Ultimately, these late payment surcharges are added to the cost of electricity supplied to the end consumers. It is, thus, the end consumers who suffer by paying higher charges on account of the DISCOMS not making timely payment to the Generators. [Emphasis Supplied]. 19. By applying the principles laid down in. MSEDCL v. APML & Others : 2023 SCC Online 233 also followed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 11095 of 2018 disposed of on 20.04.2023, we hold that this Court has to be slow in interfering with the findings given by an expert body like Ombudsman-II, OERC, as has been held in Association of Industrial Electricity users v. State of A.P. (2002) 3 SCC 711. All that this Court has to be Page 17 of 20 -18- satisfied is that the Ombudsman has followed the proper procedure and unless it can be demonstrated that the decision is on the face of it arbitrary or illegal or contrary to the Act, this Court would not interfere. 20. Following the principle laid down in the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India; 2023 SCC Online SC 1, we observe that this Court should be slow in interfering the decision taken by expert in the field, i.e., GRF Ombudsman of OERC, OERC and unless it is found that the expert body has failed to take into consideration the mandatory statutory provision or the decisions taken is, based on extraneous considerations or it is ex-facie arbitrary and illegal, it would not be appropriate for this Court to substitute its views with that of the expert body. 21. Now applying the principles discussed above to the present case, it has to be held that the petitioner has failed to bring to the notice of this Court that any of the mandatory statutory provisions have not been considered by the Ombudsman. The petitioner has also failed to show that the decision of the Ombudsman is based on extraneous consideration. To reiterate the principles laid down in Vivek Narayan Sharma (supra), this Court has to be slow in interfering with the findings of the fact unless they are found to be perverse, arbitrary and in ignorance of or contrary to the statutory provisions. As discussed above, the petitioner distribution licensee has failed in its efforts to make any case before this Court to interfere with the order impugned. Page 18 of 20 -19- 22. The “EPILOGUE” in GMR (supra) highlights the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court feels it apt and appropriate to reiterate those observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is seen that several appeals are being filed by the distribution licensee arising out of concurrent finding of fact given by statutory bodies like Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman of OERC having expertise in the field and it is found in some of the matters, the appeals have been filed only for the sake of filing the same, perhaps with an objective of not implementing the order passed by the GRF confirmed by the Ombudsman. As has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GMR (supra), the objects and reasons of Electricity Act, 2003 would reveal that the statutory enactment sought to achieve better management of the generation of power and electricity distribution by the distribution licensee, to minimize transmission loss and to give better service to the consumers who are paying the bill for electricity they are consuming. In spite of this position, litigation after litigations are pursued though the concurrent orders of statutory expert bodies like GRF and OERC cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary or in violation of the statutory provisions. To reiterate the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GMR (supra) unwarranted litigation, which wastes the time of the Court as well as adds to the ultimate cost of electricity consumed by the end consumer, ought to be avoided. Ultimately, the huge cost of litigation on the part of DISCOMS adds to the cost of electricity that is supplied to the end consumers. Page 19 of 20 -20- 21. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition fails. The order passed by the Ombudsman is to be complied forthwith. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. …………………….. ………………….. Biswanath Rath, J. M.S.Sahoo, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 8th May, 2023/dutta AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Digitally signed by AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Date: 2023.05.10 21:24:12 +05'30' Page 20 of 20