EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CESCO/CESU), KENDRAPARA ELECTRICAL DIVISION-1 AND ANR. Vs. GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and order dated 24.3.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 17429 of 2006 by which the writ petition filed by the present Appellants has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Respondent No. 2 is a consumer of electricity under the Appellants -company under Domestic Tariff for a contract demand of 2.5 K.W. and a meter has been installed in her premises for the purpose of billing of the electricity supplied. As the regular bills were not paid the outstanding dues accrued to the tune of Rs. 5708/ - up to May, 2003. On 25.6.2003 the premises of Respondent No. 2 was verified by the Divisional MRT squad of the Appellants -company and on inspection it came to the conclusion that there has been tampering with the meter. On the basis of inspection report dated 25.6.2003 a bill was prepared for a sum of Rs. 11,240/ - and accordingly the consumer was asked to file her objection within seven days of the receipt of the provisional assessment. The consumer instead of submitting any objection paid 50% of the bill, i.e., Rs. 5600/ - on 15.7.2003. Instead of making payment of the balance amount, Respondent No. 2 approached the State Consumer Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") and obtained an ex parte interim order against the Appellants not to disconnect the power supply to her premises. The said case was finally decided by the Commission on 25.8.2003 directing the said Respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - with the Appellants without prejudice to her rights, and relegated the matter to GRF for redressal of her grievance. The said Respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 3000/ -and the matter was entertained by the GRF. It was contested by the Appellants and decided vide order dated 28.1.2006. By the said order, the GRF set aside the report dated 25.6.2003 and it was provided that he amount deposited by Respondent No. 2 under different orders should be adjusted in the future bills.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellants filed a writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by Judgment and order dated 24.3.2008 by a speaking and reasoned order agreeing with the findings recorded by the GRF. Hence this writ appeal.