Pratap Jena vs State Of Odisha And Others

K.R. Mohapatra, J

1.This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the action of the S.D.O.(TPCODL), Electrical Sub-Division, Pipili-Opposite Party No.3 in disconnecting the power supply to the Petitioner’s premises without following due procedure of law.

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that by serving an inflated electricity bill of Rs.82,042.00/- and without complying with the provision under Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, power supply to the premises of the Petitioner was disconnected. In spite of several attempts, the Petitioner has not been provided with electricity till date. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that electricity bill requires revision, giving him an opportunity of hearing. He further submits that in the meantime, the Petitioner should be given power supply to earn his livelihood.

Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the TPCODL, however, prays for an adjournment to take instruction in the matter.

Taking into consideration the nature of dispute, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the Petitioner to approach the competent Authority for revision of bill within a period of two weeks hence along with certified copy of this order. For a period of eight weeks, power supply to the premises of the Petitioner shall be restored on payment of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand) observing other formalities.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the Petitioner. If the Petitioner does not comply with this order, the Authority is at liberty to disconnect power supply, if given to the premises of the Petitioner in the meantime.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

……………………….