IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.10324 and 22292 of 2011 W.P.No.10324 of 2011: BETWEEN The Northern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited, Warangal and three others. ... PETITIONERS AND The Vidyut Ombudsman, Hyderbad and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. O. MANOHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. P. KAMLAKAR W.P.No.22292 of 2011: BETWEEN Sri Mallikarjuna Rice & Oil Mills, Karimnagar. ... PETITIONER AND The Northern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited, Warangal and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P. KAMLAKAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR. O. MANOHAR REDDY The Court made the following order: COMMON ORDER: With the consent of both the learned counsel, the present writ petitions are heard finally and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. While the Northern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited and its officials are petitioners in WP.No.10324 of 2011, the third respondent therein is the petitioner in WP.No.22292 of 2011 and vice versa. For the sake of convenience, first petitioner in WP.No.10324 of 2011 is referred to as ‘distribution company’ and the third respondent in WP.No.10324 of 2011 is referred to as ‘consumer industry’. 3. A dispute was raised by the consumer industry before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Warangal in C.G.No.297 of 2010 of Karimnagar circle relating to service connection being S.C.No.691 at Godavarikhani. The said dispute was adjudicated by the forum on 10.01.2011 holding that the case is not entertainable and is not under the purview of the forum. Questioning the said order, the consumer industry approached the Vidyut Ombudsman in appeal, being Appeal No.1 of 2011, wherein the Ombudsman passed the award dated 11.02.2011, which is impugned in WP.No.10324 of 2011. The writ petition filed by the consumer industry i.e. WP.No.22292 of 2011 is seeking enforcement of the said award. 4. Learned standing counsel for the distribution company has pointed out that the award passed by the Ombudsman is contrary to the powers of the Ombudsman and is also against the tariff fixed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Learned standing counsel states that under Sections 61 and 62 of the Act, the tariff proposed by the tariff wing of the distribution company is deliberated and fixed by the Commission and the determination of tariff, so fixed by the Commission, alone is chargeable. Learned standing counsel points out that under the impugned award the Ombudsman holds that the benefit sought for by the consumer industry is not covered by any rule or regulation and the tariff order is silent with regard to extending the benefit of sick industry to the consumer industry. In that view, the Ombudsman gave directions to the tariff wing of the distribution company to take a decision on this issue as to whether the benefit of sick industry can be extended to the consumer industry or not. However, in the last paragraph of the order, the Ombudsman gave directions to give service connection to the consumer industry by giving sick industry benefit. Learned standing counsel, therefore, points out that the operative direction given by the Ombudsman is contrary to the earlier part of the order, which directs the tariff wing to take a decision as to whether the consumer industry is entitled to be extended any such benefit. 5. Prima facie, the aforesaid contention appears sustainable. Learned counsel appearing for the consumer industry very fairly submits that that part of the order giving operative direction to extend the sick industry benefit without determination as to whether such benefit is extendable to the consumer industry or not, cannot be sustained. In that view of the matter, the operative direction given by the Ombudsman under the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. However, the other part of the order of the Ombudsman wherein he has set aside the order of the forum on the ground that no reasons are assigned for not entertaining the case of the consumer industry, cannot be found fault with and the order of the forum, which was in question before the Ombudsman, having been rightly set aside by the Ombudsman, I do not see any impediment to sustain that part of the order of the Ombudsman. As a consequence, therefore, the Ombudsman ought to have remitted the case back to the forum for adjudication in accordance with law instead of giving operative direction in the last paragraph of the order. Since there is no serious controversy on this course from either of the learned counsel, the impugned order of the Ombudsman to the extent of operative direction given in para 14 is set aside and the other part of the order of the Ombudsman setting aside the order of the forum on the ground that it contains no reason is sustained. Consequently, the grievance of the petitioner - consumer industry shall now stand remitted to the forum for reconsideration of his case in C.G.No.297 of 2010 of Karimnagar circle and the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum of Northern Power Distribution Company, AP, Warangal, shall adjudicate upon the said grievance of the petitioner – consumer industry in accordance with law by giving due opportunity to both sides. 6. To the extent of relief of restoring the service connection of the consumer industry, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner – consumer industry that it has paid all the dues to the State Financial Corporation and it is aggreable to pay the monthly charges and other dues that would accrue on account of the service connection. 7. The forum while considering the case in C.G.No.297 of 2010 as directed hereinabove shall also consider the application of the consumer industry for restoring the service connection subject to such conditions, as the forum deems fit and appropriate. It is made clear that if the adjudication of the grievance of the consumer industry takes time, the forum would be free to entertain the application of the consumer industry for restoring service connection as an interim measure and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 26, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in three days. (B/o) DSK