JUDGMENT

B.N. MAHAPATRA, J.

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 12.03.2012 passed under Annexure-8 in C.R. Case No.70 of 2011 by the OMBUDSMAN-II holding that the “Hatchery” Unit “M/s Bharasa Hatchery” is coming under Allied Agricultural Activities under Regulation 80(5)(ii) of OERC Supply Code and directing the petitioner-licensee to revise the agreement and bills from February, 2011 till the date on the basis of the applicable tariff and not in General Purpose Tariff (in short, ‘G.P. Tariff’) within 30 days from the date of issue of the order, with further direction to the opposite party-consumer to resolve the dispute in complaint handling procedure under the licensee to avail benefits under Own Your Transformer (OYT) Scheme on the ground that the said order is illegal, contrary to law and without jurisdiction.

2. Petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that the respondent-opp. Party no.1 in the forum below is one of the supply Engineers of NESCO (Licensee). The petitioner-company (NESCO) is one of the distribution companies, which is granted with the licence by OERC under Section 14(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, ‘Act, 2003’) to distribute electricity as a distribution licensee within the Northern Zone of Orissa. Thus, the petitioner is engaged in business of retail supply of electricity to various consumers within its area of supply. The petitioner as a supply Engineer of NESCO is in charge of the Electrical Division, Baripada in the district of Mayurbhanj. One Bhabani Shankar Jena, Proprietor of M/s. Bharasa Hatchery-opposite party No.2 has executed an agreement on 18.12.2010 for supply of power for a load of 15.00 KW to his Hatchery unit. In terms of such agreement the charges to be paid by the consumer as mentioned in Clause-6 of the agreement is ‘General Purpose Tariff’ which is otherwise known as ‘Commercial Tariff’. As the business activities of the consumer is purely commercial in nature, commercial tariff is applicable to him. The consumer is liable to pay the charges in accordance with the provisions of OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 (in short, “Code, 2004”) as notified in the Tariff Notification from time to time. Opp. Party no.2 while running his Hatchery unit as commercial purpose for profit motive continued to pay the charges demanded on G.P. (Commercial Tariff) as stipulated in agreement. While doing so, opp. Party no.2 raised a complaint before the Grievance Redressal Forum (in short, ‘GRF’) of the licensee-NESCO in GRFCC No.321/2011 praying for revision of the bills from February, 2011 to June, 2011 on the basis of Tariff applicable for the categories of consumers covered under “Allied Agricultural Activities” introduced by OERC in its Retail Supply Tariff order for 2008-2009. Opp. Party no.2-petitioner filed its counter reply objecting applicability of the Allied Agricultural tariff to the complainant-consumer’s Hatchery unit. The GRF, Balasore upon hearing the parties and after analyzing the factual as well as legal aspects disposed of C.C. No. 231 of 2011 vide its order dated 29.10.2011 observing that classification of Hatchery unit of opp. Party no.2 under the G.P.S. (commercial) Tariff is legally correct and justified. Opposite Party No.2 being aggrieved by the said order of GRF dated 29.10.2011 approached the OMBUDSMAN-II (Electricity), Bhubaneswar on 29.11.2011 by filing a representation which was registered as C.R. Case No. 70 of 2011. Before the OMBUDSMAN, the present petitioner filed his objection along with the written notes of argument. After hearing both the parties, the OMBUDSMAN passed the impugned order dated 12.3.2012. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Mr. S.C. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 12.3.2012 passed by the OMBUDSMAN under Annexure-8 is without jurisdiction as the same has been passed in violation of Regulation 7(4) of OERC (Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsma