W.P.(C) No. 22946 OF 2012 Page 1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 22946 OF 2012 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) ***** Parshuram Martha …… Petitioner -Versus- 1. The Deputy Manager, (Com), Electrical Sub Division, Khurda 2. The Jr. Engineer, Electrical, Khurda 3. The Manager, Electrical Khurda, Electrical Division, CESU, Khurda .…… Opp. Parties Advocates appeared: For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. D.R. Ray, Advocate (For Opp. Party Nos.1 & 3) CORAM : MR JUSTICE KRUSHNA RAM MOHAPATRA MR JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO ------------------------------------------------ Heard and disposed of on 27.07.2026 ---------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT By the Bench; 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Jul-2026 17:07:06 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No. 22946 OF 2012 Page 2 of 8 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to set aside the award/order dated 17th September, 2012 (Annexure- 2) passed by the Ombudsman-I, Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bhubaneswar (not made a party to the writ petition) in Consumer Representation Case No.OM(I)-41 of 2012. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner, as would reveal from the writ petition, is that the Petitioner, being a domestic consumer with Account No.04693258, having Contract Demand of 1.5 KW. Accordingly, the bills were raised as per the meter reading up to April, 2007. In April, 2007, the Junior Engineer (Electrical), CESU, Khurda (now TPCODL), declared the meter to be defective. After that, the bills were raised on Load Factor basis at the rate of 216 units per month from May, 2007 to December, 2011. On 6th January, 2012, the meter installed in the house of the Petitioner was verified by the Meter Relay Test (MRT) team. In their physical report, it was observed that the meter status was found to be okay and Contract Demand is to be enhanced from 1.5 KW to 7.5 KW. The meter reading was recorded as 39817 units. Hence, a bill for Rs.2745/- per month was raised from January, 2012, and another heavy bill for the month of February, 2012, at Rs.94,478/- was raised, which included differential arrear from May, 2007 to December, 2011 amounting to Rs.89,135/- and the current bill for Rs.2575/-. 3.1 The Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a complaint before the Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF) under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity, 'the Act') read with the Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Jul-2026 17:07:06 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No. 22946 OF 2012 Page 3 of 8 Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (GRF and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004, requesting to withdraw the said bill and to install a new meter to record the actual consumption and revise the bill accordingly. The GRF did not accept the grievance raised by the Petitioner and rejected the complaint. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his complaint, the Petitioner moved the Ombudsman under Section 42(6) of the Act by filing a representation. On consideration of the representation filed by the Petitioner, the impugned award under Annexure-2 was passed on 17th September, 2012. Assailing the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits with vehemence that the Junior Engineer, in April, 2007, had reported the meter installed in the residence of the Petitioner to be defective. But the MRT Team, on physical verification of the premises of the Petitioner, observed that during lamp test, the meter status was found to be okay and recorded that the Contract Demand should to be enhanced from 1.5 KW to 7.5 KW. He, however, submits that since the meter installed in the premises of the Petitioner was found to be defective, the meter reader was raising the bill each month on average basis. He further submits that the MRT Team, on 6th February, 2012, on physical verification, found the seals of the meter to be intact and on lamp test, it was found to be satisfactory, showing reading as 39817 units. Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Jul-2026 17:07:06 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No. 22946 OF 2012 Page 4 of 8 5. It is also submitted by Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, that the meter reader had found the last meter reading to be 2924 units. As such, the Petitioner did not sign the physical verification report, which was erroneous. The GRF did not appreciate the matter properly and rejected the complaint filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a representation before the Ombudsman under Section 42(6) of the Act. The Ombudsman proceeded on a presumption and surmises by accepting the report of the MRT team, who verified the meter installed in the house of the Petitioner on 6th February, 2012, and found the same to be okay with seals intact. Thus, he disbelieved the report of the Junior Engineer submitted in April, 2007. However, the Ombudsman had directed in the impugned award to send the said meter to the State Testing Laboratory, Bhubaneswar, headed by a competent Electrical/Deputy Electrical Inspector, to conduct the technical test and to report whether the meter was defective or not. It was also directed that, in case it is reported that the meter was defective, the bills will be revised as per Regulation 97 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004, by billing on the basis of average meter reading for the consecutive three billing periods succeeding the billing period after installation of a new tested meter till receipt of the report from the State Testing Laboratory. On the other hand, if the meter is found to be okay, then the entire bill amount as per the meter reading shall be paid by the Petitioner. During the interim period, the Opposite Party shall install a tested meter and raise the provisional bills. It is Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Jul-2026 17:07:06 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No. 22946 OF 2012 Page 5 of 8 submitted that when the meter was found to be defective by the Junior Engineer in April, 2007, there was no scope either for the MRT Team or for the State Testing Laboratory, Bhubaneswar, to verify the meter again and report differently. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned award under Annexure-2 and to remit the matter to the Ombudsman for fresh adjudication of the representation in accordance with law. 6. Mr. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the TPCODL, submits that the findings of the Ombudsman are based on the consideration of rival contentions raised, securitization of records, and proper application of the relevant provisions of law. He further submits that the Ombudsman, being not a party to the writ petition, the writ petition is not maintainable. He also submits that, in the meantime, the Standard Testing Laboratory, Bhubaneswar, has submitted its report on 21st November, 2012, wherein it is indicated that the meter was okay. The report submitted by the Deputy Electrical Inspector, Standard Testing Laboratory, Bhubaneswar was placed before the learned Mediator and is attached to the case record. None of the parties to the writ petition, disputed the said report. Hence, the Court should be slow in interfering with the concurrent finding of facts. It is also submitted that the Junior Engineer had reported the meter to be defective without proper verification. There is no material on record to show the basis which prompted the Junior Engineer to arrive at a conclusion that the meter was Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Jul-2026 17:07:06 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No. 22946 OF 2012 Page 6 of 8 defective. As such, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed. 7. Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the core issue involved in the writ petition is whether the meter installed in the premises of the Petitioner was defective or okay. In one hand, the Junior Engineer, in April, 2007, reported the meter to be defective. On the other hand, the MRT Team, on physical verification, found the seals to be okay and, on lamp test, found the meter functioning perfectly. Based upon the load factor, the MRT team recommended the Contract Demand to be raised from 1.5 KW to 7.5 KW. 7.1. On perusal of the impugned award under Annexure-2, this Court finds that the Ombudsman has taken note of the rival contentions of the parties and meticulously dealt with the same. Since the issue was with regard to the functioning of the meter, the Ombudsman thought it proper to send the meter installed in the premises of the Petitioner to the State Testing Laboratory, Bhubaneswar, for testing. In the meantime, the Standard Testing Laboratory of the Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar has already tested the meter and found it to be functioning properly. The Testing Laboratory made the following observations in its report dated 22nd November, 2012: “ TEST REPORT OF DISPUTE ENERGY METER. TEST REPORT NO. STL/1200/1 DATE OF TEST: 22.11.2012 Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Jul-2026 17:07:06 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No. 22946 OF 2012 Page 7 of 8 NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE CONSUMER : Sri Parsuram Martha. At- Bhaliabdi, Po- Pallabat, Dist- Khurdha TESTING FEES: ₹ 200/- Amount Deposited Ch. No- 66 Date-17.11.2012 of ₹200/- Today that is on 20.11.2012 at about 12:35 PM in presence of J.E. ,Section-I, Khurdha, CESU, Sri Pitabash Sahoo. Consumer Sri Parsuram Martha , Sri D.K Bhuyan. AEE, Sri H. Pani A.E. and B.K. samantray. JE., The meter Box was opened in our STL Laboratory for testing. Observation before Testing: 1. Sealing Condition: A) The meter body seal & TP Box seal were intact bearing No. 0023691 &0023690 (Green Plastic, CESU), MRT, BBSR were checked and found Ok. B) No Terminal cover Seal was there. The Terminal cover was paste by white paper which is signed by party & JE (D) C) The above above paper seals (hand sign) was opened in presence of JE (D), Consumer & Lab. Staff STL for testing purpose. 2. Initial Meter Reading - 44675.14 Details of the Energy Meter: 1Phase 2 Wire Make: Alstom Sl. No.:9381816 Class: 2.0 Volts: 240V Amps:05-20A R/KWH:600 Standard meter details: Make: L&G Sl. No.63333806 Class:0.1 Creep: No, Starting: OK Long duration Test at 0.866 PF and 5 A : % of Error Kwh (+)0.98 Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Jul-2026 17:07:06 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No. 22946 OF 2012 Page 8 of 8 Observation after Testing: 1. Final reading of Kwh : 44676.20 2. Meter body was sealed by STL No.- 021936 (Red Plastic, STL) REMARKS 1. From long duration test it is found that the percentage of error in Kwh components is (+) 0.98, that is within permissible limit as per Class 2 accuracy of meter. 2. From above test results, it is concluded that the meter is found OK.” 8. Since an expert body has tested the meter installed in the premises of the Petitioner to be okay and the report is not disputed or challenged by any of the parties to the writ petition, we are not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Ombudsman under Annexure-2. We also find no infirmity in the findings as well as the recommendation of the Ombudsman under Annexure-2. 9 Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated 27th July, 2026/Madhusmita Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER