The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Jun-2024 13:58:28 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.38951 OF 2023 Reyaz Mohammad Latif …. Petitioner Mr. Omkar Panda, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Soumya Mishra, Advocate -versus- Union of India and others …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, Advocate (For TPCODL) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 18.06.2024 5. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 7th February, 2023 and 26th May, 2023 (Annexures-7 and 9 respectively) passed by the Manager (Electrical), BCDD- II, TPCODL, Bhubaneswar, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner for supply of electricity, has been rejected. 3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel being authorized by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has his residential house over Plot No.51 in Bhola Mouza under Chandaka P.S. in the district of Khordha. He applied for power supply under Pradhan Mantri Sahaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojna (Soubhagya Scheme). His application was rejected by the Manager (Electrical), BCDD-II, TPCODL, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 31st March, 2021. Assailing the same, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.16122 of 2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 9th November, 2022 with the following direction: Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Jun-2024 13:58:28 // 2 // “8. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is set aside. Opposite Party No.7 is directed to consider the application of the Petitioner afresh keeping in mind the aforesaid provision of the Soubhagya Scheme by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. A decision on the application of the Petitioner shall be taken as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order.” 4. Since learned counsel for the TPCODL did not appear on the said date, I.A. No.15398 of 2022 was filed for recall/modification of the aforesaid order, which was disposed of vide order dated 28th November, 2022 rejecting the same. Although a direction was given by this Court to provide opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, but the same was conveniently ignored by the authority while considering his application afresh as per the direction of this Court. Further while considering his application afresh, the authority took note of the inspection report dated 27th September, 2022. Since the direction was made for consideration of the application of the Petitioner afresh, the authority could not have taken into consideration the inspection report submitted prior to the order passed in the writ petition. The application of the Petitioner was rejected on a flimsy ground stating that the premises to which power supply was intended is inside the campus of “CHANDAKA ELEPHANT SAFARI RESORT”. The Petitioner had applied for supply of 1KW load for residential purpose under Soubhagya Scheme. But, the purpose for which the premise is being used does not come under the provision of the said scheme. The ground on which the application of the Petitioner for supply of electricity was rejected is not sustainable, as the Petitioner had purchased the land from Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Jun-2024 13:58:28 Chandaka Elephant Safari Resort and has constructed his // 3 // residential house thereon. The power supply was being sought for for agricultural purpose. Hence, there was no impediment on the part of the TPCODL for supply of electricity under Soubhagya Scheme. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned orders under Annexures-7 and 9. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the TPCODL vehemently objects to the above and submits that the premises to which the power supply is sought for is situated within the Chandaka Elephant Safari Resort, which is being used for commercial purpose. There is no boundary wall/demarcation of the premises to which the Petitioner is seeking power supply. The contention raised in the writ petition is seriously disputed both in the impugned orders under Annexures-7 and 9 and in the counter affidavit. The Petitioner has an efficacious remedy under the provisions of Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004 (for brevity ‘the Regulation’). Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable is liable is to be dismissed. 6. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the application of the Petitioner for supply of electricity was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner is not entitled to power supply under the Soubhagya Scheme. It is stated that the house of the Petitioner is situated under the Chandaka Elephant Safari Resort, which is a commercial establishment. But the Petitioner has applied for power supply under domestic category. Although the Petitioner has stated that Plot No.51 over which the residential house of the Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Jun-2024 13:58:28 Petitioner is situated is being used for residential purpose, but // 4 // this being a disputed question of fact, cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further the Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF) has been constituted under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Regulation 2004 provides procedure for redressal of grievances of the consumer by the GRF and Ombudsman. In exercise of power under Regulation 4(2) read with Regulation 15 of the Regulation 2004, Circulation No.GRF-1/2004 dated 19th October, 2004 has been issued. As per the said circular, new connection is a matter to be considered by the GRF. Thus, the concerned GRF has jurisdiction and competence to delve into and redress the grievance of the Petitioner. When an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the Petitioner for redressal of his grievances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 7. Accordingly, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of the Petitioner, disposes of the writ petition with an observation that in the event the Petitioner makes a grievance before the concerned Grievance Redressal Forum within a period of three weeks hence following due procedure of law, the same shall be considered in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ms (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Page 4 of 4