The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.10572 of 2025 Nirmal Chandra Prusty ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Suresh Chandra Dash -versus- 1) The Executive Engineer Electrical (tpcodl), Cuttack Electrical Div. 2) S.d.o.-cum-assessing Officer, Electrical (tpcodl) , Electrical Sub- div.,choudwar 3) Supdt. Engineer-cum-designated Authority, Tpcodl, Electrical Circle, Cuttack ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. L.K.Moharana
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 12.05.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. L.K.Moharana, learned counsel for the TPCODL. Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit the Writ Petition, issue a rule- nisi calling upon the 0pp. Parties to Show-Cause as to why the Writ Petition shall not be allowed & the Page 1 of 5. Demand Notice Vide Annexure-4 (Series) shall not be treated as without Jurisdiction and electricity to the Petitioner’s premises shall not be Supplied forthwith & if the said O.Ps. fail to Show-Cause or show insufficient and unsatisfactory Cause, your Lordship (s) may be pleased to make the rule absolute & issue an appropriate Writ/Order directing the O.Ps specifically to O.P No.l to provide the applied premises/Industrial electricity Premises forthwith as an interim measure without any further delay; to And further be pleased to pass appropriate Order quashing the Demand Notice vide Annexue-4 (Series) as without Jurisdiction and further be pleased to impose Penalty and Compensation on the O.Ps as per Section-43(3) & Clause-5, Schedule-Ill of OERC (Licensee’s Standards of Performance) Regulations, 2004 for the harassment & delay in supplying electricity to the Petitioner’s Premises within the time limit as stipulated in the aforesaid provisions of law.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the petitioner who is an unemployed youth has set up an industrial unit for production of oxygen cylinder. Accordingly, he had applied for an electricity connection from the TPCODL by submitting his form along with his required deposits. He further contended that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.15,27,649/- towards Security Deposit and 6% Supervision Charge with the licensee. Accordingly the construction work with regard to the electricity connection has started. He further contended that the Opposite Parties are only required to charge the electricity to the unit of the present petitioner. Page 2 of 5. 5. At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner received a demand notice from the Opposite Parties dated 18.02.2025 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner is availing the power supply by means of direct hooking from the nearest L.T network and the petitioner was called upon to file a show cause. He further stated that the show cause/objection has been filed on 12.03.2025, 17.03.2025 & 20.03.2025, besides filing a written complaint before the designated authority of the licensee raising objection with regard to the correction of the procedure adopted while conducting inventory. Since no decision has been taken on the show cause reply as well as the complaint before the designated authority the petitioner being aggrieved by such conduct of the opposite parties has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 6. Mr. Moharana, learned counsel appearing for the TPCODL on the other hand contended that although the electricity line has been drawn to the nearest pole situated near the unit of the present petitioner however the unit has not been provided with the electricity supply as the petitioner has not cleared the dues as has been demanded pursuant to the demand notice dated 18.02.2025. In the aforesaid context learned counsel for the TPCODL referred to Physical Verification Report (PVR) dated 07.02.2025 which has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure-4 series to the writ application. He further contended that the petitioner being aggrieved by the Page 3 of 5. assessment while admitting his due through his e-mail has sought for reassessment of the dues by the opposite parties. In the aforesaid factual backgrounds, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties contended that since the petitioner has not cleared the arrear dues that has been demanded under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, the opposite parties are not in a position to provide the fresh connection to the petitioner’s unit, although the work of drawing electricity connection to the nearest unit has been concluded in the meantime. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the TPCODL contended that the present writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the documents annexed to the writ application, further keeping in view the factual background of the present writ application, this Court is of the view that the dispute can be resolved by giving following directions to the parties:- 1) The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to pay the adjudicated liabilities in accordance with law pursuant to the notice dated 18.02.2025 under Annexure-4 to the writ application. 2) The Opposite Party No.3 is further directed to decide the objection/show cause of the petitioner dated 20.03.2025 under Annexure-5 to the writ application within a period of four weeks. 3) The proceeding pursuant to the notice under Page 4 of 5. Annexure-4 dated 18.02.2025 shall be concluded within a period of eight weeks. Petitioner is directed to cooperate with the authorities for early conclusion of the proceedings. 4) Subject to the petitioner furnishing the undertaking as has been indicated on the point No.1, the Opposite Parties shall provide a new electricity connection within a week subject to compliance of other formalities under the Rules and guidelines. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-May-2025 19:47:52