Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shri Dudh Kumar Giri vs The West Bengal State Electricity ... on 24 April, 2019
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
1
30 24.4.2019 MAT 261 of 2019
Aloke/G.S.Das
Ct. no. 1 With
CAN 3168 of 2019
With
CAN 3167 of 2019
Shri Dudh Kumar Giri
versus
The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution
Company Ltd. and Ors.
Mr. Subhas Chandra Bandyopadhyay
Mr. Kartik Kumar Ray
... for the appellant
Mr. Ritwik Pattanayak
... for the Respondent Nos.2&6
Mr. Srijan Nayek Ms. Rituparna Maitra Mr. S.S. Koley Mr. Rajkumar Basu Mr. A. Mitra ... for the WBSEDCL In Re: CAN 3168 of 2019:
Upon considering the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and being satisfied with the causes shown by the appellant for the delay in preferring the appeal, we condone the delay in filing the appeal.
The application being CAN 3168 of 2019 is allowed. The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Limited (the Distribution Company) had filed a bunch of 2 writ petitions challenging the order of the Ombudsman to award compensation to consumers for delay in giving electricity connection. The present appellant was a respondent in one of those writ petitions being WP 20410(W) of 2014.
By the judgment and order dated May 15, 2015 in WP 27601(W) of 2012, the learned single Judge allowed one of the said writ petitions. By a separate order of the same date, the learned single Judge allowed the other writ petitions in view of the decision in WP 27601(W) of 2012. The learned single Judge held that the Ombudsman did not have the power to award compensation and set aside the orders of the Ombudsman.
The West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission and the present appellant preferred appeals against the said order of the learned single Judge. The appeal of the Regulatory Commission being FMA 3291 of 2015 was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment and order dated February 1, 2016.
We are told that the said judgment and order has attained finality, the special leave petition against the same having been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme 3 Court. We are also told that a subsequent review petition preferred by the Distribution Company before this Court has also been dismissed.
In view of the Division Bench judgment dated February 1, 2016 passed in FMA 3291 of 2015, the present appeal must succeed.
The order of the learned single Judge impugned in this appeal stands set aside.
We make it clear that the order of the Ombudsman shall be given effect to, at the earliest, and, in any event, within a period of fortnight from the date of communication of this order to the Ombudsman.
The appeal and the application being CAN 3167 of 2019 are accordingly disposed of.
(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, CJ.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)