IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1619 OF 2009 (MS) M/s Khatima Fibers Ltd. …………………Petitioner. Versus Forum for Redressal of the Consumer Grievances (U.P.C.L.), Kumaon Zone Haldwani and others. ………………Respondents. Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for respondents. 23rd November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. B.D.Upadhyay, Advocate for respondents. This writ petition has been filed by a consumer of electricity challenging the order dated 28.2.2009 (Annexure -9 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 1 and order dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2. The facts of this case are that the petitioner, which is a consumer of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. had challenged the tariff of the Uttaranchal Electricity Regulatory Commission by which it had to pay 20% extra charges for continuous supply even at the time of load shedding. The petitioner initially challenged the matter before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (U.P.C.L.). The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 28.2.2009 and consequently, it filed a representation before the Ombudsman, who is appointed under Regulation 3 of Chapter III of the Uttaranchal Electricity Regulatory Commission. The Ombudsman vide its order dated 6.8.2009 upheld the order of the Consumer 2 Grievance Redressal Forum and stated that it is the liability of the petitioner to pay extra charges as it has exercised option for the same and once it has exercised its option, it cannot shrink from it. However, apart from fixing the liability on the petitioner, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that the petitioner was misusing the grievance redressal mechanism and has indulged in uncalled for litigation and therefore, delayed the matter and a cost of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner. This Court is not going on the issue as to whether the Ombudsman has powers to impose cost as he has done in the present case. The regulations which have been framed by Uttaranchal Electricity Regulatory Commission in its Chapter V Regulation 6 state that while giving an award, the Ombudsman, inter alia, will be guided by “such other factors which in its opinion are necessary in the interest of justice.” Regulation 6 of Chapter V of the Uttaranchal Electricity Regulatory Commission reads as under: “6. Award (1) After considering the representations and hearing the parties to the representation, the Ombudsman shall pass a speaking order giving the award with detailed reasoning that he thinks fair in the facts and circumstances of a case. While making an award, the Ombudsman shall be guided by the evidence placed before it by the parties, the principles of applicable law and practice, directions, instructions, guidelines and regulations issued by the Commission from time 3 to time, and such other factors which in its opinion are necessary in the interest of justice. (2) The award passed by the Ombudsman shall set out:- (a) Summary of the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) Issue-wise decision; (c) Reasons for passing the award; and (d) Directions, if any, to the Licensee or complainant or any other person. (3) As far as possible, the Ombudsman shall pass an award within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the complaint. In case of any delay beyond this period, the Ombudsman shall give the reasons for the same in the award. (4) A copy of the award shall be sent to the complainant and the licensee named in the complaint or to any person as may be deemed fit by the Ombudsman for compliance in accordance with the directions contained therein.” The actual ambit and scope of the above provision is not presently under discussion. However, this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner had already deposited the required extra charges even before going to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, it cannot be said that the petitioner in any way delayed the matter. The petitioner was only taking his grievance before the Forum, which is provided to him under the law. Therefore, imposition of cost of Rs. 20,000/- on the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 4 Therefore, this writ petition is being partly allowed. The cost imposed by the Ombudsman on the petitioner is held to be incorrect and that part of the order of the Ombudsman is quashed. However, it is clarified that on merits regarding the liability of the petitioner to pay the extra charge, which has been fixed upon the petitioner both by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum as well as by the Ombudsman no interference is being made. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 23.11.2009 Rathour