The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 23243 OF 2023 Utkal Graphites Pvt. Ltd., Rayagada …. Petitioner Mr. Umesh Chandra Pattnaik, Advocate -versus- Tata Power Southern Odisha Distribution Ltd. (TPSODL), Rayagada and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, Advocate (For TPSODL) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 16.08.2023 3. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the disconnection notice dated 9th March, 2023 (Annexure-9) issued by the Executive Engineer, Rayagada Electrical Division, Rayagada-Opposite Party No.2 under Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of Consumer No.311001040063. 3. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner-Unit had a sister concern, namely, M/s. Utkal Graphites Pvt. Ltd. at Amabodala, Rayagada having its Consumer No.311001040144. Due to default in payment of electricity dues in respect of the sister concern of the Petitioner- Unit, a penal bill of Rs.1,29,02,255/- was raised against the said Unit. Accordingly, vide notice dated 15th July, 2022 (Annexure- 6), the said Unit was intimated that if it fails to pay the aforesaid penal dues, it will be added to the current billing fold of the Page 1 of 5 // 2 // Petitioner-Unit. The sister concern of the Petitioner-Unit assailed the said notice before the Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF) by filing a complaint, which was registered as C.C. No.331 of 2022. However, the complaint was disposed of vide order dated 15th February, 2023 with the following order: “The respondent is hereby directed to: The Complaint is devoid of any merit. The grievance is not coming under the purview of the Forum as the dispute relates to penal claims made as per OERC Distribution Conditions of Supply Code, 1998 due to pilferage of energy by tampering meter and other matters. The Complainant is advised to clear the legitimate dues to avoid legal action as may be taken for recovery of dues by Respondent. With this pronouncement the case is disposed of.” 4. Assailing the same, the Petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No.19906 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 5th July, 2023 granting liberty to redress its grievance before the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC) within a period of period of two weeks. Accordingly, the said Unit approached the OERC and it has already been disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Designated Authority, i.e. Superintending Engineer, Electrical, TPSODL, Rayagada. At that juncture, notice under Annexure-9 has been issued to the Petitioner-Unit. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel that the Petitioner-Unit has never defaulted in payment of electricity dues and charges. No arrear as against the Petitioner-Unit is outstanding at present. Thus, Section 56 (1) of the Act is not Page 2 of 5 // 3 // attracted to the instant case. As such, the Executive Engineer, Electrical, TPSODL, Rayagada has no jurisdiction to issue notice under Annexure-9. The Petitioner-Unit as well as its sister concern are distinct Units all together. They have separate consumer numbers. Thus, for the default of another consumer, the Petitioner-Unit should not be burdened with the liability. Hence, he prays for setting aside the notice under Annexure-9. 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for TPSODL submits that in W.P.(C) No.19906 of 2023, the very same notice under Annexure-9 was under challenge and this Court while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dated 5th July, 2023 granted liberty to the Petitioner to move the OERC. Accordingly, the Petitioner moved the OERC and the said matter has already been disposed of. Thus, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is his submission that since the Petitioner-Unit defaulted to comply with the notice under Annexure-6, the consequential notice under Annexure-9 has been issued. Due to non-compliance of the notice under Annexure-6, the penal dues as against the sister concern of the Petitioner-Unit was added to the current billing fold of the Petitioner-Unit. As such, it becomes the dues of the Petitioner-Unit. Hence, Section 56(1) of the Act is squarely applicable to the instant case. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Considering the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case record, more particularly the notices under Annexures-6 and 9, it is clear that notice dated Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 15th July, 2022 (Annexure-6) was issued for recovery of the aforesaid charges against the sister concern of the Petitioner- Unit at Amabodala, Rayagada. There was a default clause in Annexure-6 to the effect that if the said Unit does not pay the said amount or comply with the said notice, the defaulted amount will be added to the current billing fold of the Petitioner-Unit. 8. However, it is submitted by Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel that although the sister concern of the Petitioner-Unit challenged the electricity dues levied against it, but the default clause was never challenged. Thus, the present writ petition is maintainable. 9. The submission of Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted as the Petitioner had moved the GRF against the notice under Annexure-6. It appears that in W.P.(C) No.19906 of 2023, the self-same notice under Annexure-9 was under challenge and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 5th July, 2023 granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the OERC for redressal of its grievances. Accordingly, the Petitioner-Unit has already approached the OERC and final order has already been passed. 10. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that pursuant to the observation/direction of the OERC, the Petitioner has already approached the Designated Authority for redressal of its grievances. 11. Since the notice under Annexure-9 has already been challenged and it was decided in the earlier writ petition, it is no Page 4 of 5 // 5 // more available to be challenged in the present writ petition. Thus, the present writ petition is incompetent. It further appears that notice under Annexure-9 is a consequence of non- compliance of the direction/observation in the notice under Annexure-6. The said notice is not challenged in the present writ petition. However, notice under Annexure-6 was challenged by the sister concern of the Petitioner-Unit and as stated, at present the same is pending before the Designated Authority. As such, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. 12. It is, however, observed that the Petitioner, if so advised, may approach the Designated Authority for redressal of its grievances with regard to continuance/restoration of power supply to its Unit, as it is stated that pursuant to the direction of the OERC, it has already approached the Designated Authority for redressal of its grievances. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. bks (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Aug-2023 19:54:25 Page 5 of 5