^W^ f: Qtftls^ i~r IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WP( C ) No. ^&_j^_ 1 2007 Petitioner/ Appellant Respondents/ Ombudsman& Resppndents Before it '..^".^ ^"Anup Goyal, 45 Yr., S/o Late Niranjanlal Goyal, Prop.M/s. Goyal Foods, At Pithiyajhar Road, Mahasamund CG VERSUS ^ 1. Ombudsman (Electricity), for Raipur CG situate atD -9, Electricity Board Premises, Gudiyari, Raipur y 1. Executive Engineer, Chhatisgarh State Electricity Board, Teh. & Distt. Mahasamund ^3. Chief Engineer, , 4. Senior Accounts Officer, No. 3 & 4 Posfe Af;- CKhatisgarh State Electricity Board, Gudiyari, Raipur, CG WRIT PGTITION U/ART. 226 r/w 227 OF THE CON5TITUTION OF INDIA '^^ r>(o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER/ APPELLANT RESPONDENTS/ OMBUDSMAN & RESPONDNETS BEFOREIT WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 5846 OF 2007 Anup Goyal Versus Ombudsman (Electricity) & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Brajesh Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri A.S. Gaharwar, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (QRAL) (Passed on this 7th day ofJuly, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing forthe parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 9-7-2007 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Ombudsman (Electricity), Raipur, in appeal/representation case No.27/07. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a dispute between the parties with regard to calculation of electricity bills. The petitioner challenged the same before the Forum for Redressal of Grievance of Consumer, Raipur, the same was dismissed by order dated 29/03/2007, According to the petitioner, the said order was dispatched on 05/04/2007. The petitioner received the copy of order on 07/04/2007. 4. According to the petitioner, the wife of the petitioner died on 20/04/2007. The rituals (Terahavi) of the deceased was performed on 01/05/2007. Thereafter,the petitioner contacted his counsel about the further proceedings. At that time, the counsel had gone to Ulhas Nagar (Maharashtra) to visit his ailing sister and informed the 6. petitioner that the limitation for preferring the appeal was 45 days. The counsel returned from Ulhas Nagar on 05/05/2007 and handed over the file to the petitioner on 07/05/2007. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the representation/appeal within 45 days. However, when the petitioner came to know that the limitation for preferring the appeal was 30 days, he immediately moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filjng the appeal, but the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Thus, this petition. On bare perusal of the records, it appears that the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the authority below in a technical manner only on the ground of limitation i.e. 10 days delay in spite of sufficient and cogent reasons assigned by the petitioner for not filing the appeal well within the stipulated period. The authority below has not at all considered the case of the petitioner in its true perspective. In view offoregoing and forthe reasons mentioned hereinabove, the delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner before the Ombudsman (Electricity), Raipur is condoned. The case is restored to its original file. The impugned order dated 09/07/2007 is set aside. . The authority below is directed to consider and decide the matter in accordance with law and on its own merits. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove may not be understood as the opinion of this Court on the merits ofthecase. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge