Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 13 (UTT)

Alok Bagwari v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-01-04

VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 20.06.2019, passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Uttarakhand, in Representation No.19 of 2019. The petitioner-consumer had raised a grievance with regard to the electricity bill, raised by the respondent-licensee at the end of January, 2018 showing consumption of 19105 units. The Electricity Ombudsman has not found merit in the petitioner's representation, and rejected the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is running a small hotel at Guptkashi, and his meter reading pattern would show that he has never consumed such a large amount of electricity, in any month. Prior to approaching to the Electricity Ombudsman, the petitioner had also approached the Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Srinagar, Garhwal, vide Complaint No.135 of 2018, which was rejected by the said Forum on 21.02.2019. It is against that order that the petitioner had approached the Electricity Ombudsman. 3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Electricity Ombudsman called upon the respondent- licensee to provide information regarding MRI of old meter for the period April 2014 to August 2015, and for the new meter for the period August 2015 to March 2019. The respondent was also asked to clarify if there was any amendment made to the G.O. dated 26.05.2014, whereby the electricity consumption charges were waived off on account of Kedarnath tragedy of 2013. The respondent was also required to provide the breakup of total dues shown in the bill for January, 2018- the bill in dispute. The respondent provided the information vide letter dated 13.06.2019. The impugned order deals with the information provided by the respondent, as desired from it, in Paragraph No.5 of the impugned order. 4. What emerges from the impugned order is that for the last five months of the year 2017, i.e. August, 2017 to December, 2017, the provisional bills were raised upon the petitioner on the basis of average consumption, without taking the actual meter reading. However, when the bill of January, 2018 was raised, the same was founded upon the actual meter reading taken on 30.01.2018. The difference between the last actual meter reading and the meter reading taken at the end of January, 2018, showed the total consumption of 19105 units of electricity by the petitioner. However, when the bill of January, 2018 was raised, the same was founded upon the actual meter reading taken on 30.01.2018. The difference between the last actual meter reading and the meter reading taken at the end of January, 2018, showed the total consumption of 19105 units of electricity by the petitioner. On that account, the respondent raised its bill for January, 2018, after granting adjustment of the amounts paid by the petitioner for the months of August, 2017 to December, 2017. 5. The petitioner has himself placed on record the consumer history for the period 01.09.1990 to 31.08.2019. The said consumer history has been perused by the Court, and on a perusal thereof, it is evident that the meter reading at the end of months of August, 2017 to December, 2017 were not taken, as the same meter reading of 1906 is reflected in the bills raised for the said five months. Only when the meter reading was again taken at the end of January, 2018, the same read as 21011. On that basis, the consumption of 19,105 was worked out by the respondent. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is running a small hotel, and it is not possible that the petitioner could have consumed such a large amount of electricity. 7. I cannot agree with this submission for the reason that it is not for this Court in writ proceedings to go into the said factual aspect. It is not the petitioner's case that the meter installed at his premises was faulty. No grievance in this regard has been raised by the petitioner. Merely because meter readings may not have been taken for the months of August, 2017 to December, 2017, and bills may have been raised provisionally, it does not follow that the petitioner would not be liable to pay for the actual consumption of electricity during the said months. It is obvious from the consumer history that the petitioner has consumed 19105 units of electricity starting from August, 2017 upto the date when the actual meter reading was taken at the end of January, 2018. 8. Mr. Pundir points out that even earlier, the consumption of electricity by the petitioner has been of the same order. It is obvious from the consumer history that the petitioner has consumed 19105 units of electricity starting from August, 2017 upto the date when the actual meter reading was taken at the end of January, 2018. 8. Mr. Pundir points out that even earlier, the consumption of electricity by the petitioner has been of the same order. However, I am not inclined to get into the said aspect, since I am not called upon to decide the disputed question of facts in these proceedings. 9. The order dated 20.06.2019, passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, appears to be well-reasoned and founded upon relevant and germane material. I see no reason to interfere with the same. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.