Dismissed

Ananta Rana v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC18 Nov 2022WP(C)/27743/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged erroneous revision of an electricity arrears bill. The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy via Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and dismissed the writ petition without engaging on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner advised to avail statutory remedy under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Ananta Rana Vs State of Orissa — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 27743 OF 2022

¶2

Ananta Rana

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Gopal Charan Mohanty, Advocate -versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and others

¶6

…. Opp. Parties

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

18.11.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to the S.D.O., Electrical Sub-Division, Bari-Opposite Party No.4 to dispose of his representation dated 16^th July, 2022 (Annexure-6) for revision of his arrear bill.

¶15

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.6740 of 2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 23^rd March, 2022 with the following direction:

¶16

“5. On considering all the facts and submissions made, this Court directs the Opposite Party No.4 to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and intimate the decision thereof to the Petitioner.

¶17

6. However, no disconnection of the power supply to the premises of the Petitioner shall be made, if deposits an amount of 40% of the arrear amount claimed along with a copy of this order and goes on paying the current bill till disposal of this representation.

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

7. Needless to say that if it is found that the Petitioner is not liable to pay the aforesaid arrear amount, the amount so deposited shall be adjudicated in his future energy bill.

¶21

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

¶22

Pursuant to the said direction, Opposite Party No.4 although revised the bill of the Petitioner, but the revision of the bill is totally erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, the Petitioner submitted another representation on 17^th July, 2022 before the S.D.O., Electrical Sub-Division, Bari. But, no action has yet been taken by the Authority for consideration of such representation. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

¶23

Since the dispute is with regard to the revision of bill of power consumption, the Petitioner has remedy under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for its redressal. As such, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶24

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the Petitioner, if so advised, may avail statutory remedy for redressal of his grievance.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Ananta Rana v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananta Rana v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meghamala Parida Vs State of Odisha

Amar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Braja Kishore Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Kailash Chandra Samal Vs State of Odisha

S.Priyanka Rao Vs K.Bijaya Kumar

Tillotama Parida Vs Sarabindhu Parida