IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1739 of 2006 (M/S) Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman and Managing Director, Urja Bhawan Kanwli Road, Dehradun and another. …… Petitioners. Versus Deepak Sharma, Secretary Shastri Enclave Welfare Society, Haridwar Road, Dehradun and two others. … Respondents. Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate, with Sri N.S.Negi, learned counsel for the petitioners. None respondents for the respondent no. 1 despite sufficient service. Date July 15, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18-10-2006, passed by Ombudsman-respondent no.2 (contained as Annexure No. 01). By the order impugned, the petitioner was directed to supply the electricity connection to the residents of Shastri Enclave Welfare Society Limited from the urban feeder instead of Raipur rural feeder. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that a complaint of general nature was made by the Shastri Enclave Welfare Society through its Secretary-respondent no.1. It is not a disputed fact that the complaint was filed on behalf of the society and the respondent no. 1 did not file the complaint for redressal of his personal grievance. The complaint was rejected by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, vide its order dated 25-11-20056, with the observation that the nature of the complaint does not come within the purview of the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and the complainant should approach the Department through some other channel. 2 Aggrieved by the said order passed by third respondent, the complainant approached the respondent no.2 and filed a representation after expiry of approximately six months. The Electricity Act, 2003 provides 30 days’ limitation for filing the representation before the Ombudsman. After hearing the petitioner and the respondent no. 1, the second respondent, by the impugned order, allowed the representation and directed the petitioner to supply electricity connection to the residents of Shastri Enclave Welfare Society from the urban feeder. I have heard Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners-Power Corporation and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 1 despite sufficient service. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that it is a policy matter as to which area/colony be connected with rural feeder and which area should be connected with urban feeder. By a perusal of the complaint as well as the order passed by the ombudsman, it reveals that there is no dispute of any individual grievance and the complaint was made of general grievance. Learned Ombudsman directed the petitioners to provide electric supply to the residents of Shastri Enclave Welfare Society from the urban feeder without assessing the position whether it is feasibly possible to do so or not. So far as Vidhan Sabha feeder is concerned, the supply of electricity depends upon the load on an individual feeder. Learned Ombudsman without calling for any report from the petitioner-Corporation as to how much load would be diverted on Vidhan Sabha feeder if the electric supply is given to the residents 3 of Shastri Enclave Welfare Society instead of the Raipur Feeder, from where the electric connections to the residents of Shastri Enclave Welfare Society have been given. The impugned order was passed without any material on record. Moreover, the complaint in the present case is of general nature and it is not an individual complaint of any person. The impugned order passed by the Ombudsman cannot be sustained. If the residents of the colony concerned are aggrieved, the complainant may approach to the Department, as has been directed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum. The order dated 25.11.2005 passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Dehradun, reads as under:- “The nature of the complaint does not come within the purview of this Grievances Redressal Forum and the complainant should approach the department through some other channel. Under the circumstances the complaint is not maintainable. It be filed.” For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned order passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside. The order passed by the third respondent is liable to be maintained. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18-10-2006 is set aside. The order dated 25-11-2005 passed by the Consumers’ Grievances Redressal Forum, Garhwal Zone, 120, Haridwar Road, Dehradun, is maintained. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5 6