The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.9057 of 2025 Laxmidhar Mohanta ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Susanta Sekhar Parida -versus- Tata Power Northern Odisha Distribution Ltd (TPNODL), Balasore and others ..... Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Adv. for TPNODL CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 07.04.2025 Order No. 02. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned counsel for TPNODL. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore humbly prayed that let this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to consider the facts stated above, call upon the records and issue notice to the Opposite Parties in Rule NISI, calling upon them to show cause as to why the Letter No. 659 dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Executive Engineer, Rairangpur Electrical Division, TPNODL, Rairangpur, the Page 1 of 4. OPP. Party No. 2, under Annexure- 10 shall not be quashed/set-aside and appropriate direction shall not be issued to the Opp. Parties to supply new electric connection to the premises of the Petitioner over Plot No. 638 of Mouza- Icchinda and if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, after hearing the parties, the Letter No. 659 dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Executive Engineer, Rairangpur Electrical Division, TPNODL, Rairangpur, the OPP. Party No. 2, under Annexure- 10 shall be quashed/set- aside and appropriate direction shall be issued to the Opp. Parties to supply new electric connection to the premises of the Petitioner over Plot No. 638 of Mouza- Icchinda forth with without any further delay and allow the writ petition. And passed such other order(s) / direction (s) as would be deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner applied for a new electricity connection to his residential premises which is situated on the ancestral land of the present Petitioner. He further contended that there exists a civil suit among the co-sharers with regard to the partition of the share of the ancestral property. Although the suit was filed in the year 2019, the Petitioner who is living on the suit land applied for his new electricity connection by depositing the fees as is required under the Rules on 04.01.2022. He further contended that a status quo order was passed on the pending civil suit on 22.03.2022, i.e. much afte the Petitioner submitted an application for a new electricity connection. He further contended that although the Petitioner has deposited all the charges as is required for drawing installation of the new electricity Page 2 of 4. connection, however, the same has not been considered by the Opposite Parties-Distribution Company. 5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties-Distribution Company on the other hand contended that while the application of the Petitioner was in process, an objection was filed by some of the co-sharers raising objection to the supply of new electricity connection to the premises of the present Petitioner. He further contended that taking into consideration the objection of the plaintiff in the civil suit, further keeping in view the status quo order passed by the learned Civil Court on 22.03.2022, the Opposite Parties have not given the new electricity connection as has been applied for by the Petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner on the other hand contended that neither the Petitioner nor the Opposite Parties-Distribution Company are parties to the suit, therefore, they are not bound by any interim order passed by the learned Civil Court in the pending civil suit. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Opposite Parties-Distribution Company has already provided existing connection to the occupants of the land. Therefore, there is no difficulty is providing in new connection to the Petitioner on the compliance of procedural requirement and subject to such deposit as prescribed under the Rules. He further contended that earlier the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6391 of 2025, the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 06.03.2025 granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.2 which shall be considered in accordance with law. The representation of the Petitioner, which was filed pursuant to the aforesaid order, has been rejected vide order dated 17.03.2025 under Annexure-10 to the writ Page 3 of 4. petition. 7. On perusal of the order dated 17.03.2025, it appears that the Opposite Party No.2 has rejected the representation of the Petitioner on the ground that a status quo order has been passed in I.A. No.57 of 2021 arising out of C.S. No.200 of 2019. It is not disputed at bar that the present Petitioner and the Opposite Parties are not parties to the aforesaid civil suit. 8. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the status quo order passed by the learned Civil Court will not be applicable to the Petitioner as he is not a party to the civil suit. Such order shall be confined to the parties to the suit. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the application of the Petitioner for providing a fresh electricity connection in the event there is no other legal impediment to the same, such electricity connection shall be provided to the Petitioner subject to the terms and conditions as prescribed in the present Rules. However, the new electricity connection that is likely to be provided to the Petitioner shall be subject to the final outcome of C.S. No.200 of 2019 pending before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Rairangpur 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Apr-2025 18:55:41 Page 4 of 4.