Mr. Justice S.C. Mohapatra, President — Deficiency in service is grievance of the complainant.

2. Complainant entered into an agreement for supply of electricity with opposite party where under he was required to consume electricity of 24.5. K.Ws. After agreement, supply line was connected on 10.3.1990. Case of complainant is that the machines which were to operate through electricity were not ready for which there was no consumption of electricity. The meter set up by opp. party also gave a reading “0”. However, complainant was willing to deposit the minimum charges when exorbitant amount was demanded from him. Ultimately, without acceding to the request, the line was disconnected on 21.12.1990. A notice was given by Opp. Party in the month of January, 1991 for payment of arrears as per the bills. Thus, complainant has made a grievance that by demanding exorbitant amounts when he has not consumed the electricity, there is a deficiency in service as a result of which he has suffered on account of disconnection of the supply line.

3. Despite valid service of notice, no statement in reply has been given by the opposite party. Mr. B.K. Nayak, Advocate who usually appears for State Electricity Board and its officers, was present today and accordingly, we requested him to make his submissions on questions of law so that our order does not become inconsistent with any law, Mr. Nayak has submitted that as per the regulation, the entire demanded amount is to be paid if there is a dispute. So complainant has to deposit the entire amount which would be kept as advance, in case, he would be supplied with electricity afresh as per direction of the Commission. Mr. Nayak further submitted that as per that as per agreement, there is no scope for arbitration since there is a specific clause in the standard agreement that there would be no arbitration in case of dispute with regard to consumption of energy. Mr. Nayak submitted that in view of Section 41-A of the Arbitration Act as amended in Orissa, Arbitration would be before the Arbitration Tribunal and there is no scope for any arbitration by any other authority. Mr. Nayak submitted that appeal lies against excessive bills before the Superintending Engineer of the concerned circle.

4. Original bills were produced before us which indicate that in the first bill for the month of March, 1990, the initial reading was 0002 and the final reading was 0020. Consumption was thus, 18 K.Ws in the main meter. In the factory lighting meter initial reading was 0000 and final reading was 113 K.Ws. Thus, a bill to Rs. 1135 was sent to be received on 17.4.1990. In the subsequent months, the consumptions were all ‘0’. However, bills were sent increasing the amounts day by day. It is not disputed that the first bill has not been paid. The minimum charges should have also been paid. The opposite party should have appeared before us to explain the circumstances under which excessive charges were made. There is no appearance. Accordingly we accept the statement of the complainant that he made grievances to the Executive Engineer repeatedly who did not take care to take steps in the matter.

5. State Electricity Board is a statutory body. It discharges the function of the State. State activities are for welfare of the citizens. An officer should not have dis-regarded the grievances of a consumer howsoever inconsistent the same may be. It was duty of the Executive Engineer to satisfy the consumer that he is bound by the rules and regulations of the board and should have assisted the consumer to follow the procedure laid down under the rules for making the grievance if at all he has any grievance. Like any other bureaucrat, the officer has felt that he is not accountable for his actions or inactions. Such officer has not hesitated even to ignore this Commission which is an adjudicating body created under the statute. If complainant would have paid the first demand or given any notice in writing, we would have taken