Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had approached to the Electricity Ombudsman, who had granted an interim relief on 14.09.2017. But the interim order was not being complied with, therefore the petitioner had approached to the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission in case No.11 of 2018. The Regulatory Commission had disposed of the case by means of the order dated 01.12.2020 directing the respondent to issue the amended bill as per the direction of the Electricity Ombudsman vide report dated 17.03.2020 but till date the amended bill has not been issued to the petitioner as per the direction. Therefore as per the liberty granted by the Regulatory Commission, the petitioner has approached to the Regulatory Commission by means of the application dated 31.12.2020 as his electricity connection was also dis-connected on 30.12.2020. But the Commission verbally declined to grant any relief to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.
Sri Amit Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that the petitioner had filed case No.11 of 2018 but despite repeated dates fixed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission, the petitioner was not appearing to press his application. Therefore the application was disposed of by means of the order dated 01.12.2020 in accordance with law with liberty to the petitioner to approach to the Commission, if his grievances are not redressed. In pursuance of the order dated 01.12.2020 passed by the Regulatory Commission, the bill was prepared but the same has not been paid by the petitioner. Therefore the disconnection was made. Thereafter the petitioner has again approached to the Electricity Regulatory Commission by means of the application dated 31.12.2020. Therefore this writ petition is not maintainable.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is apparent that in case No.11 of 2018 filed by the petitioner before the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, repeated time was given to the petitioner, but when he did not appear to press the application, the case was disposed of by means of the order dated 01.12.2020 with the direction to issue the amended bill as per the direction of the Electricity Ombudsman vide report dated 17.03.2020. Thereafter the bill has been prepared and when the same was not paid the disconnection was made. Thereafter the petitioner, as per liberty granted by the Commission vide order dated 01.12.2020 approached to the Regulatory Commission by means of the application dated 31.12.2020.Therefore this writ petition is not maintainable.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Electricity Ombudsman has changed its earlier direction vide order dated 17.03.2020 without any basis cannot be considered because the same has not been challenged and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that bill has not been issued as per direction is contradictory also.
The writ petition, is, accordingly dismissed.
However the petitioner may move appropriate application before the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission for disposal of his application showing urgency. In case any such application is moved, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and an endeavour shall be made to expedite the disposal of the application.
.............................................(Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 11.1.2021 Akanksha