ANIRUDDHA LENKA vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL

IA/5053/2015

Having regard to the nature of the case, which involves the very source of livelihood of the applicant, the delay in filing the Review Application is condoned.

RA/183/2015

For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the Revision Petition, being RP/1066/2002, is restored.

RP/1066/2002

This Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant, seeking a direction to North Eastern Electricity Supply Company, Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint, and its functionaries to provide an electricity connection for his 5 HP motor, to be used by him for the purpose of irrigation of his fields, in accordance with OERC Distribution (conditions of supply) Code 2004.

Shorn of unnecessary details, in short, the grievance of the Petitioner, which emerges from the record, is that since he was not getting uninterrupted electricity power supply for the aforesaid purpose, particularly in the ''Rabi'' season on account of low voltage, he had approached the Respondents for installation of a new transformer of the capacity of 63 KVA and for providing connection line to him. According to him, his suggestion for installation of a new transformer was approved and funds for the said purpose were also released by the Government, yet the transformer was not installed.

Having failed to get his grievance redressed from the Respondents, as also from the Bijli Adalat, the Petitioner filed the Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhadrak (for short "the District Forum"). Vide its order dated 9.12.1998, the District Forum directed the Respondent to examine the load factor of the installed transformer and if it was found that the same was overloaded, an additional transformer may be installed to meet the minimum demand of the consumers in that area.

Not being satisfied with the said order, the Petitioner carried the matter in Appeal to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha at Cuttack (for short "the State Commission"). The State Commission, vide its order dated 31.7.2001, in C.D. Appeal No.225/1999, while accepting the report of the Junior Engineer, submitted by him at their direction, wherein he had reported that there was less flow of voltage of energy to Lift Irrigation (LI) Point of the consumers, including the Petitioner, directed the Respondents to ensure that there was supply of electricity of the adequate voltage, within a reasonable period. Still dissatisfied, he is before us.

When the matter came up for hearing on 1.4.2008, it was stated on behalf of the Respondents that the order passed by the lower Fora had been complied with to the extent that a new transformer had been installed and the bill disputed by the Petitioner, had been revised. Since, on that date of hearing, the Petitioner was not present and being satisfied with the statement made on behalf of the Respondents, the Revision Petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed application for recall of the said order, which we have allowed by a separate order.

During the pendency of the said Application, in order to find out some permanent solution to the problem, vociferously highlighted before us by the Petitioner, vide order dated 8.4.2016, we had directed the Superintending Engineer of the area concerned to look into the grievance of the Petitioner and try to resolve the bone of contention and if, for some reason, it was not possible for him to do so, he, along with his Executive Engineer, shall appear in person before the Bench, along with the relevant records pertaining to the grant of electricity connection and assist us in making appropriate orders.

In deference to the said order, Mr.Anant Narain Bosoi, Executive Engineer concerned, is present along with the relevant records. He has also filed an affidavit on behalf of the Respondents, wherein it is stated that on inspection of the area by the Technical Experts, it had been decided that the Petitioner shall be supplied power from the nearest 25 KVA or 16 KVA transformer, which will ensure uninterrupted supply of adequate voltage to the Petitioner''s premises. It is also stated that it would not be possible for the Respondents to install a 63 KVA transformer for a single consumer to run a 5 HP motor. It will, however, be open to the Petitioner to install a transformer, in accordance with the 2004 Code, at his own cost. Reference is also made to the

objections raised by the cultivators near to the L.I. Point to the installation of an independent transformer.

We have heard the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent for a considerable time. We are of the view that having regard to the statement made by the Executive Engineer in his affidavit, the Revision Petition can be disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to energize the 3.7 KW Agricultural Electricity Connection applied by the Petitioner, within four weeks of the Petitioner''s handing over the material, stated to be lying with him, to the Electricity Department, as it is also stated by the Executive Engineer before us that the Respondents shall ensure that the Petitioner gets uninterrupted power supply of adequate voltage during the entire ''Rabi'' season, commencing in the month of December every year. It is also stated before us that the bill in the sum of Rs.4,086/-, which is still due from the Petitioner, shall also be withdrawn/cancelled.

We expect and hope that the Respondents shall stand by the assurance given by the Executive Engineer on their behalf in letter and spirit and would not provide any cause for grievance to the Petitioner.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.