JUDGMENT

S.K. Mishra, J. – The petitioner, in this writ petition, assails the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the learned Grievances Redressal Forum, CESU, Dhenkanal, in Consumer Complain Case No.116/2010, which has been confirmed by the learned OMBUDSMAN-I in Consumer Representation Case No. OM(I)-04 of 2011 on 21.4.2011 upholding the demand of the electricity company of Rs.15,07,307/-from the petitioner towards arrear electricity dues.

2. The petitioner set up a Flour Mill and for the purpose of running the same entered into an agreement with the opposite parties on 20.9.2001 for a contract demand of 250 KVA. For supply of such demand, the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Angul Electrical Division, CESU, Angul, opposite party no.3, prepared an estimate for 1.2 km 11 KV line with 250 KVA 11/0.4 KV transformer. The cost estimate of Rs.5,26,435/-was intimated to the petitioner, which was duly paid by the petitioner.

The petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs.1,05,268/-towards supervision charges and an amount of Rs.3,90,034/-towards security deposit. Due to labour and capital problem, the petitioner’s unit became sick and on 1.11.2003, it put forth its grievance requesting opposite party no.3 to consider its case under Section 109 of the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commissioner Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 1998 (for short “the Code, 1998”) and allow its unit for 5 KW light load only.

3. In pursuance of the agreement executed on 20.9.2001, the opposite parties served a disconnection notice on 18.11.2003 and subsequently power supply was disconnected on 29.11.2003 for nonpayment of dues. Opposite party no.3 vide letter no.610 dated 6.2.2004, intimated the above facts to the petitioner and further noticed to pay Rs.2,30,476/-up to the month of January, 2004, failing which, the petitioner was intimated that the agreement will be terminated on 28.2.2004 without further notice. In the meantime, the petitioner’s unit became a sick one and was seized by the Orissa State Financial Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Thereafter, on 20.8.2008 the petitioner’s unit wrote a letter to opposite party no.3 for refund of the security deposit after adjusting the demanded amount of Rs.2,30,470/-upto January, 2004. In response to the petitioner’s letter dated 20.8.2008, opposite party no.3 vide letter no.7640 dated 31.12.2008, sought for necessary instructions from the Sr. General Manager(Com.), CESU Headquarters, to refund the security deposit after adjustment of the arrear dues of Rs.2,30,476/-i.e. upto January, 2004. However, instead of refunding the aforesaid to the petitioner, opposite party no.3 on 11.2.2009 intimated to the petitioner to clear up the arrear dues of Rs.15,07,307/-in order to release the refund of security deposit.

4. The petitioner thereafter aggrieved by such a letter approached the Grievances Redressal Forum (GRF), CESU, Dhenkanal. But as per judgment dated 15.12.2010 the petitioner’s complain was dismissed and it was directed to pay the amount immediately to the opposite parties.

Being aggrieved by such an order the petitioner filed an appeal before the OMBUDSMAN-I, Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission(OERC), Bhubaneswar, and the same was also dismissed on 21.4.2011. Being aggrieved by both the orders of the OMBUDSMAN-I as well as the GRF and the action of opposite party no.3 in demanding Rs.15,07,307/-, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, inter alia, praying that the orders passed by the GRF and OMBUDSMAN-I be set aside, the letter demanding Rs.15,07,307/-be quashed and the opposite parties be directed to deposit the security amount deposited by it after adjusting the arrear dues as claimed by it along with interest.

5. Opposite party no.3 has filed counter affidavit, inter alia, pleading that the agreement, which was entered into between the parties, provides that it shall commence from the date of execution and shall continue in force until expiry of th