The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 29954 of 2023 United Friends Builders (P) Ltd., Cuttack …. Petitioner Mr. Susanta Kumar Baral, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. A.K. Nanda, AGA Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Advocate Mr. M.R. Pradhan, Advocate Mr. L. Moharana, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 10.11.2023 Order No. 03. 1. Petitioner is a builder. Prayer in the writ petition is for quashing final order dated 4th May, 2022 made by the Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF) and order dated 31st August, 2023 made by the Ombudsman, on being moved pursuant to the final order. Page 1 of 6 // 2 // 2. Mr. Baral, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He had moved the petition on 10th October, 2023. Text of the order made that day is reproduced below. “1. Mr. Baral, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is a builder. Some part of the apartment building is yet to receive ‘no objection certificate’ (NOC) from Cuttack Development Authority (CDA/opposite party no.5). 2. By order dated 4thMarch, 2022 the Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF) had directed disconnection of electricity to the apartment building. His client moved the Ombudsman and there was restoration by interim order. Also impugned is final order dated 31stAugust, 2023 made by the Ombudsman rejecting his client’s petition on saying that prayer for direction not to disconnect power supply is impermissible in law. 3. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. 4. Issue notice for admission and stay on opposite party nos.2 and 5. Accept one set of process fee for service by Registered/Speed Post with A.D. Petitioner will put in requisites. 5. By impugned final order dated 31st August, 2023, the Ombudsman appears to have omitted determination on the question of disconnection directed by the GRF. Page 2 of 6 // 3 // Instead, it rejected prayer of petitioner for direction upon the GRF not to disconnect. In the circumstances, impugned order will remain stayed till next date of hearing. 6. List on 9th November, 2023.” 3. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. Mr. Moharana, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 4 and submits, his clients are to answer. Petitioner had prayed for disconnection of electricity to flat no.401 occupied by one of petitioner’s allottees. This was not pointed out by petitioner as would appear from our earlier order dated 10th October, 2023. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.5. 4. We have heard the parties and perused materials on record. Though it may appear we were misled, it transpires we were not. Order dated 10th October, 2023 was result of correct understanding of the case moved. 5. Facts are that petitioner is a builder, who has dealt with several units in the building it has constructed. One of them is flat no.401. The allottee has not been made party. Submissions on behalf of petitioner were that the project has not received ‘no objection certificate’ (NOC) Page 3 of 6 // 4 // from opposite party no.5. Inspite thereof petitioner had obtained electric connection in several units. Allottee of flat no.401 also individually obtained electric connection. Petitioner had moved the GRF to disconnect power supply immediately to flat no.401, 4th floor in Bhartia Mansion at Cuttack. The GRF, by impugned final order dated 4th May, 2022, recited the facts and said, inter alia, in the circumstances, request for supply of electricity at the premises in question occupied by petitioner should not be refused. 6. Subsequent to passing of impugned final order there was disconnection of electricity to the building, followed by reconnection. Petitioner carried impugned final order to the Ombudsman with prayer for restraining disconnection. The Ombudsman said, inter alia, as would appear on reproduction of the sentence from also impugned order dated 31st August, 2023 made by the authority. “ xxx xxx xxx Though the power supply has been restored to the premises of the Complainant/Petitioner by interim order of the Ombudsman dtd.26.08.2022 the same cannot continue for indefinite period in the absence of the NOC. In such scenario the prayer of the Petitioner for direction to the Respondent not to disconnect power supply is impermissible in eye of law.” Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 7. Case of petitioner urged before the Ombudsman was on restraint on disconnection of his connection. This was a departure from the prayer made by it before the GRF. At that stage petitioner was after its allottee, to get disconnection of electricity to flat no.401. On electricity being disconnected to the building, petitioner turned around and therefore there was reconnection. Thus the varied prayer of petitioner before the Ombudsman as would appear from first paragraph of also impugned order dated 31st August, 2023. “This order arises on the petition filed by the Petitioner (United Friends Builders (P) Ltd.) praying for direction of this Ombudsman to the Respondent to reconnect power supply to the Complainant and with further direction restricting to the Respondent from making disconnection of power supply.” 8. Law is settled that electricity is an essential supply to premises occupied. This has been discussed by the GRF in its impugned final order dated 4th May, 2022. In the circumstances, once there has been given electric connection, disconnection of electricity cannot be on plea that NOC is yet to be obtained. We are not saying that there cannot be disconnection under the law but only that the irregularity of omission to have obtained NOC before the premises was occupied cannot be a ground for disconnection of electricity. Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 9. Mr. Moharana submits, rules are in place requiring as precondition, inter alia, NOC obtained from Cuttack Development Authority (CDA) for giving connection. He submits, in this case, the connection was given pursuant to order of the GRF on a temporary basis. We appreciate the position to be that there was given electric connection to occupants in an apartment building. This connection cannot thereafter be disconnected on urging omission to produce or obtain NOC. Disconnection may be on situations provided by law, including non-payment of consumption bills. The situation emerging from connection given pursuant to interim order made by the GRF may be a circumstance for urging mitigation by the supplier for having given connection before NOC was obtained. 10. With above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. (Arindam Sinha) Judge (S.S. Mishra) Sks Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 10-Nov-2023 17:29:25 Judge Page 6 of 6