Authority: Calcutta High Court (High Court at Calcutta)

Order Date: 22 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – CESC Limited & Anr.; Respondents – The Ombudsman & Anr.
  • Writ petition WPA 2655 of 2009 filed challenging Ombudsman order dated 4 December 2008.
  • Ombudsman directed CESC Ltd to pay Rs 8,350 compensation to consumer (respondent No.2) for failure to meet standards of performance in issuing an estimate for a new electricity connection.
  • Background facts: Consumer (tenant) occupied premises No. 149 West Ghosh Para Road, previously supplied to Nirapada Dey (connection No. 54193100007). Outstanding dues of Rs 24,183.83 from previous consumer; connection disconnected 7 July 2003. Further disconnection in Nov 2005 due to dues; reconnected after payment of Rs 45,394.75 on 28 November 2005. New connection application on 7 December 2005 withheld due to alleged dues of Rs 87,588 linked to landlord Amal Kumar Dey. After hearing on 5 May 2006, CESC found no nexus and processed application. Offer letter issued 6 June 2006; consumer paid on 11 September 2006; connection effected 19 September 2006.
  • Consumer sought refund of Rs 45,394 paid on 28 November 2005 and compensation for delay beyond statutory period. Ombudsman rejected refund claim but awarded Rs 8,350 compensation for delay in issuing estimate.
  • Petitioners argued Ombudsman acted whimsically, that inspection and nexus verification caused reasonable delay, and cited Regulations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.4.2 and Regulation 12, as well as case law (Isha Marbles v. BSEB, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. DVS Steels).
  • Ombudsman maintained compensation based solely on delay in issuing estimate; noted consumer’s own delay in payment (11 September 2006) fell within 45‑day period under Regulation 3.1.2.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that CESC’s delay in inspecting premises and establishing nexus constituted a breach of Regulation 3.1.1 and warranted compensation.
  • WPA No. 2655 of 2009 dismissed; the Ombudsman’s order of 4 December 2008 affirmed.
  • Interim orders, if any, vacated; parties directed to act on server copies of the judgment; costs awarded as per court’s discretion.

Topics: Electricity Regulation, Consumer Compensation, Judicial Review