The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 12156 OF 2023 Prem Lata Goenka …. Petitioner Mr. G.M. Rath, Advocate -versus- TPWODL, Sambalpur and others …. Opp. Parties CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 20.04.2023 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the notices dated 18th January, 2023 (Annexure-5) and 16th March, 2023 (Annexure-7) issued by the authorities under the TPWODL. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Rath, learned counsel that the Petitioner is an occupier in respect of the suit premises and is residing thereon having constructed his residential house. As there is a dispute between the land owner and the Petitioner (occupier), a civil suit has been filed by the Petitioner for permanent injunction, which is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jharsuguda. When the matter stood thus, at the instance of Opposite Party No.3, namely, Bishalakshi Devi, Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 issued notice to the Petitioner on 18th January, 2023 under Annexure-5 to show cause as to why power connection to the premises shall not be disconnected in view of the withdrawal of the NOC by the land owner. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the said notice on 3rd February, 2023 under Annexure-6. Without considering the notice in its proper perspective, notice dated 16th March, 2023 under Annexure-7 has been issued. Although reply to the same Page 1 of 5 // 2 // has already been submitted by the Petitioner on 3rd February, 2023, but the authorities under the TPWODL are bent upon to disconnect the power supply in the scorching summer. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner draws attention of this Court to Regulation 2.2 (7) of the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019 (for brevity ‘the Code 2019’) which defines “Applicant” as under: “2.2 In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires: xxx xxx xxx (7). “Applicant” means an owner or occupier of any land/premises who submits an application form with a licensee/supplier for supply of electricity, increase or reduction in sanctioned load/contract demand, change in title, disconnection or restoration of supply, or termination of agreement, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Code, rules and regulations made there under or other services;” He also draws attention to Regulation 2.2 (50) of the Code, 2019, which defines “Occupier” as under: “2.2 In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires: xxx (50) “Occupier” means the owner or person in occupation of the premises where energy is used or proposed to be used;” xxx xxx 4. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner further draws attention of this Court to Regulation 8 of the Code, 2019, which reads as under: of any and premises applicant, “(8). The licensee/supplier may grant connection to the the licensee/supplier’s engineer may dispense with documentary evidence of lawful occupation of the premises at his discretion recording sufficient reasons lawful occupier. Any that documentary evidence regarding electricity connection or payment of bills raised by the licensee/supplier for consumption of electricity in this premises will not lawful constitute evidence Page 2 of 5 the purpose of the applicant is a for // 3 // occupation of the premises in any municipal record, revenue record or any court of law. Explanation : Any consumer who has been granted connection under this provision shall be deemed to be an occupier for the purposes of supply of electricity by the that his occupation is found by any court, tribunal or other authority to be not bonafide or lawful.” licensee/supplier notwithstanding 5. It is his submission that since power supply had already been made to the premises of the Petitioner, the case of the Petitioner squarely falls under the explanation to the Regulation 8. Thus, in absence of NOC by the land owner, supply of electricity cannot be snapped. In support of his case, he relied upon the decision in the case of Dillip (Dead) through Lrs. –V- Satish and others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 810, wherein at Paragraph-9, it is held as under: “9. It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question.” Relying upon the case of Dillip (Dead) through Lrs. (Supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Real Anchors Projects LLP and Others –v- NCT of Delhi and others, reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 114, has held as under: “7. Keeping in view the aforenoted observation of the Supreme Court, the present writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (i) Petitioners shall make an application for grant of a fresh electricity connection in their own name. (ii) Respondent No. 2 shall process the petitioners' providing for application fresh electricity connection forthwith without insisting on NOC from respondent No. 3 within two weeks from the date of filing of the application. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // (iii) Petitioners shall comply with all the codal and commercial requirements of respondent No. 2. (iv) Petitioners sum with shall deposit additional respondent No. 2 as may be required in addition to the regular security that they are required to under the rules or regulations. (v) Petitioners shall pay the consumption charges in accordance with the bills raised by respondent No. 2 from time to time/till the time they occupy the subject premises. (vi) Petitioners shall not seek adjustment of the security deposit. However, on the petitioners vacating the premises or being evicted and surrender of the electricity meter, petitioners shall be entitled to refund of the security deposit subject to adjustment of any dues of Respondent No. 2 shall to disconnect the electricity subject premises in case petitioners fail to pay the electricity charges. entitled the (vii)Respondent supply at No.2 be (viii) Application of the petitioners shall be processed and electricity connection shall be installed within two working days of the petitioners completing al the formalities.” 6. In view of the above, Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in absence of NOC by the land owner, power supply to the premises of the Petitioner should not be snapped. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the notices under Annexures-5 and 7 and to direct the authorities not to disconnect the power supply to the premises of the Petitioner. 7. Taking into consideration the contentions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the matter is still pending for consideration before the authorities under the TPWODL, entertaining the writ petition will amount to pre-judge the issue. 8. In view of the above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case of the Petitioner, disposes of the writ petition with a direction that before taking a decision on the notices under Annexure-5 and 7, the Petitioner shall be given an Page 4 of 5 // 5 // opportunity of hearing and the Petitioner is at liberty to redress his grievance by raising grounds both on facts and law, which shall be taken into consideration. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ms (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5