Point of Law: Law is well-settled that there is no estoppel against law. By executing an agreement on mutual terms or otherwise, providing a different date in the agreement which is not in conformity with law, cannot be accepted, more particularly when the Consumer raises an objection to the same. Licensee discharging a public duty is amenable to writ jurisdiction and a mandamus in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be issued to it to act or perform in a lawful manner, when it failed to exercise its obligation under law. As such, this writ petition is maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.

1. The Petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for convenience referred as ‘the Consumer’), calls in question the legality and propriety of Letter No. WESCO 563 dated 17th December, 2019 (Annexure-1) issued by the Chief Operating Manager (Opposite Party No. 2), WESCO Utility (now Tata Power Western Odisha Distribution Limited and for convenience referred as ‘the Licensee’) inter-alia refusing to accept the request of the Consumer to give benefit of Reduction in Contract Demand (for convenience referred as ‘RCD’) with effect from 1st December, 2015 and consequently rejecting the representation filed by the Consumer.

2. Short narration of facts relevant for proper adjudication of this case are stated thus:

2.1 The Consumer made an application to the Licensee on 26th November, 2015 for RCD from 5700 KVA to 3900 KVA (Annexure-2). The Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Rourkela of the Licensee, vide its letter dated 22nd January, 2016 recommended RCD as requested. Though the contract demand was reduced but the said letter reducing the contract demand was communicated to the Consumer by ordinary post vide letter dated 19th May, 2016 (Annexure-3) in which along with other conditions, it was specifically mentioned that the Consumer has to execute an agreement with the Authorized Officer of the Licensee for RCD within a period of thirty days, failing which the permission granted will be cancelled. The said letter under Annexure-3 was not received by the Consumer. Consequently, the Licensee, vide its letter dated 18th July, 2016 (Annexure-4) conveyed the Consumer about cancellation of permission for reduction of the contract demand. Upon receipt of the said letter, the Consumer, vide its letter dated 25th July, 2016 (Annexure-5) conveyed the Licensee about non-receipt of the said letter and requested to execute the agreement. Said request was turned down by the Licensee, vide letter dated 2nd August, 2016 (Annexure-6) and the Consumer was requested to apply afresh for RCD. Subsequent request of the Consumer, vide letter dated 25th August, 2016 (Annexure-7) was also turned down by the Licensee in their letter dated 31st August, 2016 (Annexure-8) informing the Consumer to make fresh application for RCD.

2.2 Thus, the Consumer approached the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (for convenience referred as ‘OERC’) and the Consumer has been advised to move the President of Grievance Redressal Forum (for short, ‘GRF) under the provisions of OERC (Grievance Redressal Forum-Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004 (for convenience referred as ‘Regulations, 2004’). On being moved, the GRF, vide its order dated 20th January, 2017 (Annexure-9) directed the Consumer to make fresh application for RCD before the competent authority of the Licensee. The Consumer being aggrieved moved the Ombudsman under the provisions of Regulations, 2004 in Consumer Representation Case No. OM (II) (W)-04 of 2017. Upon hearing the Consumer and the Licensee and on consideration of the materials on record, the Ombudsman by its order dated 27th February, 2017 (Annexure-10) passed the following order:-

“ORDER/AWARD

From the above findings and records submitted by both the parties, this Forum pronounces the following order:

1. The Respondent is directed to allow reduction of contract demand from 5700 KV to 3900 KVA w.e.f. December 2015 and execute necessary agreement for the same.

The Respondent is directed to implement the above order within 15 days from the date of receipt of letter of acceptance from the Petitioner and file compliance to this Forum within 30 days.

The case is disposed of and closed.”

2.3 Being not satisfied, the Licensee moved this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4550 of 2017 assailing the order under Annexure-10. Upon consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 15th May, 2017 (Annexure-11) with the following direction:-

“Considering the conte