THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KENDRAPARA ELECTRICAL DIVISION NO. 1, CESU Vs. GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner -Executive Engineer, Kendrapara Electrical Division No. 1, CESU, Kendrapara has filed this application seeking to quash the judgment dated 20.06.2007 passed by the learned Grievance Redressal Forum, Paradeep in C.C. Case No. GRF/KED -1/05/2007 in Annexure -7 and further seeking for a direction to opposite party No. 2 to execute an agreement on 18 KW load under the General Purpose Tariff Category as defined under Clause 80 (2) of the O.E.R.C. Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004.

(2.) The short fact of the case in hand is that opposite party No. 2 is a business concern of which Sri Purna Chandra Panda was the proprietor located at Tarini Market Complex, Tinimuhani known as "Kranti Photo Processor" which is a entrepreneur having a small scale industries permanently registered under the District Industries Centre, Kendrapara. Opposite party No. 2 applied for supply of power to his photo processing unit for a contract demand of 12 KW in the year 2001 and executed the agreement on 20.1.2001 and subsequently filed an application for enhancement of contract demand of 12 KW to 20 KW. After necessary verification, the agreement was executed on 27.6.2003 with contract demand of 20 KW and accordingly agreement was executed on 27.6.2003 and thereafter the bills have been prepared on the basis of Medium Industry Tariff. Thereafter opposite party No. 2 submitted an application for reduction of the contract demand from 20 KW to 18 KW and such proposal was allowed after necessary approval and communicated to the opposite party No. 2 on 29.3.2007. Opposite party No. 2 was also intimated to deposit an additional security of Rs. 26,556/ - for reduction of contract demand of 20 KW to 18 KW within seven days and to execute a fresh agreement of contract demand of 18 KW. On verification of the premises, it was found that the total connected load used by the consumer is 17.273 or say 18 KW. On 18.4.2007 a reminder was sent to opposite party No. 2 for deposit of the additional security and also for execution of a fresh agreement on 18 KW on G.P. Tariff basis as per Clause 80 of the O.E.R.C. Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004. Pending execution of agreement and deposit of the additional security amount for the month of April 2007, opposite party No. 2 was billed on G.P. Tariff basis as per Clause 80 of the O.E.R.C. Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004. It is stated by opposite party No. 2 that for demand of additional security though he has approached the authority, the same has not been considered. As his unit is a small industry, billing having been done on the basis of G.P. Tariff basis, the opposite party No. 2 approached the Grievance Redressal Forum with a prayer that fresh agreement for 18 KW of contract demand may be executed on small industrial category and the bill may be issued in small industry category from 18 KW of contract demand w.e.f. the date of his application i.e. 31.8.2004 after adjusting the excess amount already paid. The petitioner filed objection before the GRF and stated that since the opposite party No. 2 has reduced the contract demand from 20 KW to 18 KW, the unit has to be billed on G.P. Tariff basis as per Clause 80 O.E.R.C. Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004. Therefore, the demand so raised is in conformity with the provisions of law read with instruction issued vide letter dated 26.12.2003 regarding classification of implementation of tariff on different types of consumers. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the petitioner. After due adjudication, the GRF without taking into consideration the provisions mentioned in the O.E.R.C. Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 has come to a finding that opposite party No. 2 unit is a small industrial consumer with contract demand of 18 KW from April, 2007 onwards and necessary action shall be taken accordingly and directed for revision of electricity bills of opposite party No. 2 for the period from April, 2007 onwards if it has been issued on G.P. Tariff basis/Commercial tariff to S.I. tariff vide impugned judgment in Annexure -9. Challenging the said judgment in Annexure -9, the petitioner has filed this application.

(3.) Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner states that while considering the case of opposite party No. 2 the learned GRF has not taken into consideration the provisions contained in O.E.R.C. Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 in proper perspective. Since the contract demand has been reduced to 20 KW to 18 KW, the billing has to be made on the basis of G.P. Tariff basis which has been done by the authority w.e.f. April, 2007 onwards and in absence of any materials produced before the authority to satisfy the claim that it should be billed on the basis of small scale industry, the order passed by the GRF in Annexure -9 is based on surmises and conjectures inasmuch as while passing such judgment clause 80 of the O.E.R.C. Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 with regard to classification of consumers has not been taken into consideration in proper perspective. Therefore, the judgment in Annexure -9 cannot sustain in the eye of law.