The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2428 of 2025 The Executive Engineer (Elect.) Khurda Electrical Division, TPCODL, Khurda …. Petitioner Mr. L.K. Moharana, Advocate M/s. Mahalaxmi Stone, Khurda -versus- …. Opp. Party Mr.S.K. Bhanjadeo Advocate W.P.(C) No.17521 of 2024 Kailasini Routray …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr.T.K. Dash, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 29.04.2025 By The Bench: 1.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Maharana learned counsel appearing for M/s TPCODL, the licensee being supplier of electric power to the Establishment of the Consumer M/s.Mahalaxmi Stones, WP(C) No.2428 of 2025 & WP(C) No.17521 of 2024 Page 1 of 10 Khurda and Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel appearing for the Consumer. 2. The Consumer is a crusher unit who executed an agreement with TPCODL on 15th February, 2022 for supply of power to the crusher unit i.e. M/s. Mahalaxmi Stones at Chhatrama, Bajapur, Dist.- Khurda over Revenue Plot No.1562 for a period of five years from the date of supply. The supply commenced from the date of execution of the agreement. As per the terms mentioned at Clause-6 of the agreement, the Consumer shall pay the minimum monthly fixed charges, demand charges, energy charges and other charges for supply of electricity as per the provisions of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019 and as per the tariff rate prescribed from time to time. 3. During subsistence of said agreement dated 14.02.2022, it was detected by the concerned authority granting lease i.e. the Sub-Collector, Khurda that the Petitioner‟s crusher unit is running illegally on the property of Lord Jagannath and as such a revenue proceeding was initiated in the court of Sub-Collector, Khurda as Sairat Misc. Case No.1 of 2023. In the said case, the Sub-Collector vide his order dated 19.08.2023 directed to seal Petitioner‟s crusher unit until further orders and while communicating copy of said order to TPCODL, it was directed to disconnect the electricity supply immediately with intimation to the Sub-Collector. As a consequence of the said order, dated 18.08.2023, as communicated to the SDO, TPCODL, Khurda, WP(C) No.2428 of 2025 & WP(C) No.17521 of 2024 Page 2 of 10 the electricity was disconnected from the premises of the Petitioner crusher unit with effect from 19.08.2023. 4. It is admitted by both the parties that electricity supply has not been resumed to the consumer establishment as yet since 19.08.2023 and the disconnection is still continuing. 5. The Consumer approached the GRF with a prayer to exempt him from all such dues imposed during the disconnection pursuant to sealing of the unit under direction of the Sub- Collector, i.e. from 19.08.2023 onwards. The GRF vide its order dated 05.02.2024 rejected the prayer of the Consumer holding that no illegality has been committed by TPCODL in charging demand charges on the Consumer after disconnection of the power supply and the Consumer is liable to pay the same. At the same time, it is further held by the GRF that regarding reconnection of power supply as prayed by the Petitioner, he is also liable to seek necessary permission from the district authority along with clearance of outstanding dues towards demand charges for reconnection. Against the same, the Consumer approached the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman vide its order dated 30.04.2024 partially allowed the prayer of the Consumer exempting him from payment of electrical dues during the period of disconnection with effect from 04.01.2024, i.e. the date when the Consumer intimated about his disconnection to TPCODL. 6. Challenging the said order of the Ombudsman, both the instant writ petitions have been filed, one by the Consumer in WP(C) No.2428 of 2025 & WP(C) No.17521 of 2024 Page 3 of 10 W.P.(C) No.17521 of 2024 and the other by TPCODL i.e.
Decision
W.P.(C) No.2428 of 2025. Since both the writ petitions involve challenge to the common order of Ombudsman based on same set of facts, those are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 7. The Petitioner while pursuing his case is taking cover under the provisions contained of Regulation 172, 173,174 & 178 of the OERC (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019 (hereinafter stated as 2019 Code), to submit that for violation of such provisions, the disconnection of power supply to the Petitioner‟s crusher unit suffers from illegality and therefore, the demand charges cannot be levied on the Petitioner. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Maharana submits that since the disconnection is by the order of the Sub-Collector passed in the Sairat Misc. Case, TPCODL has no other option than to disconnect power supply from Petitioner unit. He further submits that in such scenario, when an order comes from a court, the same is binding on the authority regardless of any provision contained in 2019 Code. According to him, the provisions and the restrictions contained in Regulation 172, 173 and 174 regarding disconnection of power supply does not apply in the present case and the Petitioner cannot claim any benefit out of the same. 9. Regulation 172 of 2019 Code authorises the supplier to temporarily disconnect power supply in such cases, inter alia, when any business/industrial activity carried out in any premises is treated as unlawful for want of necessary permission from the WP(C) No.2428 of 2025 & WP(C) No.17521 of 2024 Page 4 of 10 competent authority. Sub-Clause (2) of Regulation 172 specifies on this aspect. As per Regulation 173, it has been prescribed that before any disconnection is made in terms of Regulation 172 (2), (3) and (4), the Consumer should be given prior notice of minimum 15 days. For better appreciation, said provisions are re-produced below: If “Temporary Disconnection: 172 (2) the conduct/continuance of any If business/ industry/activity being carried out in any premises becomes unlawful due to lack of necessary permission or withdrawal of permission from the competent authority; (3) the wiring, apparatus, equipment or installation at the consumer‟s premises is found to be defective or there is leakage of electricity or if the consumer is found to have altered the position of the meter and related apparatus or if the consumer uses any apparatus or appliance or uses the energy in such manner as to endanger the service lines, equipment, electric supply mains and other works of the licensee/supplier, or is found to be using it in any manner which unduly or improperly interferes with the efficient supply of energy to any other consumer. If at any time the consumer is found to be using (4) energy for a purpose other than for which it was intended/provided or tampers with the meter and/or licensee/supplier on his other apparatus of premises or extends/allows supply of energy to any other premises from his connection subject to procedure laid down in this Code under Section 126 and 135 of the Act.” the 10. At the outset it may be mentioned here, that the initial point of disconnection arose from the order of the Sub-Collector dated 19.08.2023 (at page 66 in W.P.(C) No.2428 of 2025). Undoubtedly, the Sub-Collector has acted as a Quasi-Judicial WP(C) No.2428 of 2025 & WP(C) No.17521 of 2024 Page 5 of 10 authority in Sairat Misc. Case No.1 of 2023 while passing such direction to seal the crusher unit until further orders with direction to TPCODL for disconnection of power supply. The Consumer admits that the said order of the Sub-Collector is still in force though it is submitted by the Licensee (TPCODL) that this order has been resulted cancellation of the lease in granted in favour of the Consumer by appropriate authority. 11. When it remains undisputed that TPCODL has disconnected power supply pursuant to the direction issued by a quasi-judicial authority, then the question arose whether such action in disconnecting the power supply by the Licensee would amount to disconnection in terms of Regulation 172 of 2019 Code. As stated above, the provisions under Regulation 172 are meant for temporary disconnection upon happening of such contingencies mentioned in Clause-1 to 5 of said Regulation 172. 12. These provisions do not support the contention of the Consumer that the disconnection was in pursuance to cognizance of facts mentioned in Regulation 172. It is well settled that the direction of a judicial or quasi-judicial authority has to be implemented by every person or authority unless it is challenged before the higher forum. Further, a direction issued in a legal proceeding by the Sub- Collector to the Electricity Authority to disconnect energy supply from a premise has the force of law and beyond application of normal rules for temporary disconnection of electricity supply. This means that the disconnection pursuant to the direction WP(C) No.2428 of 2025 & WP(C) No.17521 of 2024 Page 6 of 10 of a judicial/quasi-judicial authority is legally binding to the licensee, regardless of the standard procedures or regulations for electricity disconnection. The Sub-Collector, as a quasi-judicial authority, has the power to issue directions in certain circumstances, particularly when a legal proceeding is underway. These directions having issued within the scope of the legal proceeding, are enforceable and must be followed by the relevant authorities, including the Electricity Authority. In the context of electricity disconnection, this means that the usual rules and procedures that govern disconnection, such as notices, timeframes, and the opportunity for the consumer to address the issue, may not apply. The Sub-Collector's direction overrides these normal procedures, as it is part of a legal process and carries the force of law. Conversely, Section 146 of the Electricity Act, 2003 prescribes for punishment for non-compliance of orders/directions of courts. In essence, when the direction dated 19.08.2023 of the Sub-Collector is unquestioned, it has to be complied with by the Licensee. He had no other option than to disconnect regardless of such provision contained in the Code for temporary disconnection. It is hard to conceive a submission that, to comply the orders of a quasi-judicial body the provisions for disconnection have its application. So, it is not true to say that the disconnection of the energy supply to the crusher unit was affected for withdrawal of permission or upon declaration of the premises as unlawful in terms of Regulation 172 (2) of the 2019 Code. This nullifies further compliance of the provisions in terms of Regulation 173 and 174 of the 2019 Code. Therefore, the Petitioner fails in his WP(C) No.2428 of 2025 & WP(C) No.17521 of 2024 Page 7 of 10 contention to substantiate his case that the authorities are erred in disconnecting the power supply from the premises without further compliance to such provisions under Regulation 173, 174 or 176 of the 2019 Code. 13. What has been observed by the Ombudsman that the application of the Consumer dated 04.01.2024 has to be treated as intimation from the part of the Consumer cannot be allowed to withstand for the reason that in said letter dated 04.01.2024 the Consumer has prayed to exempt him from the dues imposed by him during the sealed condition of the crusher unit, and not for anything more. Secondly, even if it is treated as a request for disconnection from Consumer side in terms of Regulation 178 then also the respective provisions for disconnection and applying has to be read in conjunction with the terms of agreement and Regulation 143 of the 2019 Code. Regulation 143 of the Code specifies as follows : “Demand Charges : (i) Monthly demand charges shall be payable by the consumer on the basis of maximum demand and contract demand as determined in the tariff notification. In case maximum demand meter is not provided or the meter has become defective, the monthly demand charges shall be payable on the basis of contract demand as determined in the tariff notification. (ii) Such monthly demand charges shall be payable for the full period of the agreement under Regulation 48 even if no electricity is consumed for any reason whatsoever or supply has been disconnected due to default of the consumer or agreement is fore-closed before its actual termination date for any reason whatsoever. (iii) During statutory power-cuts and power restrictions imposed by the licensee/supplier, if the restriction on demand is imposed for a period exceeding sixty hours in WP(C) No.2428 of 2025 & WP(C) No.17521 of 2024 Page 8 of 10 a month, the monthly demand charges shall be prorated in accordance with the period and quantum of demand restrictions imposed. In all other cases the consumer shall be liable to pay the full demand charges.” It is also important to reproduced Clause-6 of the 14. agreement dated 14th February, 2022 which reads as follows: “Charges to be paid by the Consumer: The consumer shall pay to the engineer, for power demanded and electrical supplied under this agreement „minimum monthly fixed charges‟, „demand charges‟, „energy charges‟ and „other charges‟ in accordance with the provisions of OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019 and as notified in the Tariff Notifications from time to time; the provision Provided that annual sum payable by any individual consumer under to Section 45 of the Electricity Act, 2003, shall not be deemed to be part of the minimum monthly charges or demand charges, if any, payable by the consumer or the particular class of consumers the provisions of OERC Distribution under (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019 provided further that the consumer shall be electricity duty or such other levy, tax or duty or may be prescribed under any other law in addition to the charges, fuel surcharge and loss payable under the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019.” transformer 15. As stated above, the duration of the agreement subsists till February 2027 and therefore, by the operation of Regulation 143, if the disconnection happens for no fault of the Licensee, the Consumer is to pay the demand charges in terms of the agreement read with relevant provisions of the 2019 Code. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the order of the WP(C) No.2428 of 2025 & WP(C) No.17521 of 2024 Page 9 of 10 Ombudsman exempting the Consumer from the demand charges after 04.01.2024. 16. In the result, the writ petition filed by the Consumer, i.e. W.P.(C) No.17521 of 2024, is dismissed and W.P.(C) No.2428 of 2025 filed by the Licensee is allowed to the extent that the Consumer is not exempted from demand charges during subsistence of the agreement dated 14.02.2022. 17. With the above observation and direction, both the writ petitions are disposed of. Judge (B.P. Routray) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) K.C. Bisoi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KRUSHNA CHANDRA BISOI Reason: Authentication Location: orissa high court Date: 08-Jul-2025 11:50:05 WP(C) No.2428 of 2025 & WP(C) No.17521 of 2024 Page 10 of 10