Form No. J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI WPA 3514 OF 2026 RABINDRA SHIKSHA SAMMILLANI SAMITY & OTHERS …PETITIONERS -VERSUS- THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS For the Petitioners : Mr. Debabrata Karan, Adv. Mr. Debapriya Karan, Adv. Mr. Debojyoti Karan, Adv. For the WBSEDCL : Dr. Madhusudan Saha Ray, Adv. For the Ombudsman : Mr. Raja Saha, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee, Adv. Heard on : 27.08.2026 Judgment on : 27.08.2026 OM NARAYAN RAI, J.:- 1. This writ petition assails an order dated November 13, 2025 passed by the Ombudsman on the petitioners’ representation under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act 2003, made against an order dated March 04, 2025 passed by the Regional Grievance Redressal Officer1. 2. The petitioners approached the RGRO alleging arbitrary action on the part of the respondent WBSEDCL Authorities in raising inflated bills and disconnecting their electricity supply on December 01, 2024, on the ground of non-payment of such inflated bills. 3. The RGRO disposed of the petitioners’ representation by an order dated March 4, 2025 thereby holding that the petitioner no.1 was liable to pay the outstanding dues. 4. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioners approached the Ombudsman under Section 42(6) of the 2003 Act by way of another representation. The said representation has been disposed of by the order impugned. 1 Hereafter “the RGRO” 5. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. Mr. Karan, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the Ombudsman has failed to appreciate that once the petitioner no.1 (hereafter “the petitioner”) has been categorized as a private educational institution, the petitioner could not have been treated as an ordinary commercial consumer and could not have been stripped off the benefit of the “D-4 category of tariff” provided by the WBSEDCL Authorities. 7. Dr. Saha Ray, learned Advocate appearing for the WBSEDCL Authorities submits that the Ombudsman has passed the order correctly inasmuch as, the petitioner’s connected load/demand load was in excess of 50 KVA. 8. Mr. Saha, learned Advocate appearing for the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission submits that the order passed by the Ombudsman is unimpeachable. He reiterates, what was submitted by WBSEDCL and submits that as the petitioners’ connected load was 88 KVA i.e. more than 50 KVA and as such the petitioner could not be entitled to the ‘D-4’ category of tariff. 9. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material-on-record. 10. The Ombudsman has passed an order running into eight paragraphs. The first four paragraphs thereof are devoted to a short summary of the factual background. The fifth and sixth paragraphs contain the ultimate decision and the reasons, if at all any. The same are quoted hereunder:- “5. On the basis of today’s hearing, it is held that since at present the petitioner (herein the educational institute) having a demand/connected load of 88 KVA and does not belong to D-4 category of tariff, so the petitioner (herein the education institute) is not entitled to get the tariff rate as claimed by him. However the A.P. (herein the educational institute) reduces the load capacity below 50 KVA as suggested by the OP. Since, there is no other grievances of the petitioner, the case is to be finally disposed of without issuing any Draft Settlement Order which is also agreed to by the parties. 6. Hence, in terms of Clause 10.5 of Regulation 56/WBERC dated 26.08.2013. Final Order is issued as follows :- a) That, the Appeal Petitioner (herein the educational institute) may reduce the present load capacity below 50 KVA to get the benefit of D-4 category of tariff. b) That, the case is thus finally disposed of.” 11. The aforequoted portion of the order passed by the Ombudsman would show that the Ombudsman has only stated the conclusion. There is actually no reason in support of the ultimate conclusion that the Ombudsman has reached. 12. There is nothing on record to indicate as to why the petitioner, who has been referred to as an “educational institute”, by the Ombudsman itself in the impugned order, has been treated similarly to a commercial consumer when the tariff schedule pertaining to “Low and Medium voltage consumers” clearly indicates one particular tariff schedule to be followed for “Private Educational Institutions and Hospitals” and another to be followed by “Commercial Consumers having connected load/demand load of 50 KVA and above”. 13. To wit, when there are two separate categories under which, consumers have been categorized and the petitioner has been named as one i.e. “educational institute” - which pima facie falls within the category of “Private Educational Institutions and Hospitals” then how could it be treated “Commercial Consumer having connected load/demand load of 50 KVA and above”. 14. If by reason of exceeding connected load/demand load of 50 KVA the petitioner despite being a Private Educational Institution becomes a commercial consumer, the reason for the same must be mentioned in the order to ultimately conclude that the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of ‘D-4’ category of tariff despite being a Private Educational Institution. 15. This Court is conscious that the Ombudsman has not used the expression commercial consumer for the petitioner but at the same time this Court also notes that the standard that the Ombudsman has applied for the purpose of denying the benefit of “D-4 category tariff” to the petitioner is that which is applicable to the commercial consumers having connected load/demand load in excess of 50 KVA. 16. Since the ultimate conclusion reached by the Ombudsman is not backed by any reason as indicated hereinabove, the order deserves interference. 17. It is well settled that reasons are the live links between the factual narrative and the judicial or quasi-judicial or even administrative directive and absent reasons, any order whether judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative - cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The order impugned, therefore, deserves interference. 18. On the sole ground that the order impugned is unreasoned, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the file of the Ombudsman for fresh consideration upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the WBSEDCL Authorities. 19. Since it has been submitted by the petitioners that the petitioners have been without electricity for a substantial period of time, the Ombudsman is requested to rehear the matter and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order. Page 4 of 4 20. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claims and counter-claims of the parties and all points are left open to be decided by the Ombudsman, in accordance with law. 21. The petitioners will be at liberty to approach the WBSEDCL Authorities with a request for restoration of the electricity supply upon making part payments or payments of a lump sum of the total dues and for making the balance payment in installments. The WBSEDCL Authorities will be free to consider the petitioners’ request, in accordance with law, in the right earnest. However, it is clarified that there is no mandatory order of this Court on the WBSEDCL Authorities to restore electricity supply on payment of lump sum or to grant installments. It will entirely be in the power domain of the WBSEDCL Authorities to take appropriate decision if such request is made. 22. With the aforesaid observations, WPA 3514 of 2026 stands dispose of. No costs. 23. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)