KAMADHENU PLASTICS At-Mahulia,P.O: Gauidadiha, Dist.-Mayurbhanj-757003. vs E.E (ELECT.), BED, TPNODL

1 Together, Let us light up our lives ODISHA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION BIDYUT NIYAMAK BHAWAN PLOT NO.4, OERC ROAD, SHAILASHREE VIHAR, BHUBANESWAR -751021 TEL.

No.

2721048, 2721049 E-MAIL: [email protected] / [email protected] WEBSITE: www.orierc.org Present: Shri Pradeep Kumar Jena, Chairperson Shri S.

K.

Ray Mohapatra, Member Shri B.

Mohanty, Member Case No.

57/2025 M/s.

Kamadhenu Plastics,C/o.

Prakash Agarwalla, At-Mahulia, Mayurbhanj ………… Petitioner Vrs.

The Executive Engineer (Electrical), BED, Baripada, TPNODL, Mayurbhanj ………… Respondent In the matter of: Application under Section 142 of the Electricity Act,2003 alleging non- compliance of order dated 28.06.2023 of the Learned Ombudsman-II passed in C.R.

Case No.53 of 2022.

ORDER Date of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date of Order: 06.08.2025 The case record is put up today for orders.

2.

We have heard both the authorized representatives of the Petitioner and the Respondent.

We have also perused the application filed by the Petitioner u/s.

142 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Perusal of the records reveals that as per the interim order dated 14.05.2024, passed by this Commission in Case No.02/2024, the Learned Ombudsman-II, Bhubaneswar took up the matter pertaining to the compliance of its order passed on 28.06.2023 in Case No.OM(II)-53 of 2022 (arising out of order dated 20.07.2022 of the GRF, Balasore in Case No.198/2022) and by its order dated 27.06.2024 disposed of the matter inter-alia making the following observation: “From the aforesaid facts and circumstance, it is observed that the respondent has fully complied the order dated 28.06.2023 in C.R.Case No.

N- 53/2022 of this Authority on account of withdrawal of transformer loss & DPS and regarding payment of revised bill amount in suitable installments”.

It appears there from that on the request of the respondent; the Learned Ombudsman had directed the respondent to allow the petitioner to pay the revised bill amount by suitable installments. tallments.

This direction, it is alleged, having not been complied with, the petitioner has come up with the instant application.

3.

The respondent in his reply has averred that as per the above order dated 28.06.2023 of the Learned Ombudsman-II, installment order dated 22.08.2023 was served on the petitioner on 04.09.2024 and 2 therefore, the order of the Learned Ombudsman as well as the order of the Commission have since been complied with and there is nothing more left to be complied.

4.

The copy of the letter dated 22.08.2024 of the Executive Engineer (Elect.) TPNODL, BED, Baripada reveals that six installments were fixed for the payment of the arrear energy bill amount along with current bill.

The copy of the letter further shows that the petitioner has received it which otherwise shows that he is aware of the fixation of installments for the payment of the bill.

5.

In course of the hearing, it is however, submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the installments so fixed by the respondent is not suitable and therefore, the orders dated 28.06.2023 and 27.06.2024, passed by the Learned Ombudsman in Case No.OM) II)-53 of 2022 as well as the order dated 06.08.2024, passed by the Commission (in Case No.02 of 2024) have not been properly carried out.

6.

We have carefully gone through the orders dated 28.06.2023, 27.06.2024 & 06.08.2024 (supra).

The Commission by its order dated 06.08.2024 has dismissed Case No.02 of 2024, filed by the petitioner as settled.

It is further significant to note that while allowing the payment of the revised bill amount, the learned Ombudsman neither in its order dated 28.06.2023 nor in its order dated 27.06.2024 has fixed the number of installments for the repayment of the revised bill amount.

Since six installments for the repayment of the revised bill amount have been fixed by the respondent in pursuance of the direction of the Learned Ombudsman, we find nothing more left for the compliance of the said direction. direction.

If at all the petitioner is not satisfied with the number of installments so fixed by the respondent, he may approach the respondent for reconsideration of its decision in the matter of fixation of the number of installments.

7.

In the mean while the petitioner through his authorized Representative has submitted a memo through WhatsApp stating therein that the matter relating to installments for payment of the revised amount is pending before the CEO, TPNODL, Balasore and therefore, prayed for the closure of this case.

8.

In view of the above observations and the development arising out of the receipt of the memo from the petitioner, we feel it appropriate to drop the case.

Consequently, the case is dropped.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (B.

Mohanty) (S.K.

Ray Mohapatra) (P.

Jena) Member Member Chairperson