Dismissed

Sk. Ahamed Ali v. the Superintending Engineer, Tpcodl, Bbsr

Orissa HC14 Feb 2023WP(C)/838/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought restoration of power supply to shop rooms. The Court held that since the supply was in the name of the predecessor, the respondent was competent to apply for disconnection, and no wrong was committed by the authorities.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued by the high court to restore power supply was not granted; writ petition dismissed.

Sk. Ahamed Ali Vs the Superintending Engineer, Tpcodl… — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO.838 OF 2023

¶2

Sk. Ahamed Ali and another

¶3

…. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Advocate -versus-

¶5

The Superintending Engineer, TPCODL, Bhubaneswar and others

¶6

…. Opp. Parties

¶7

Mr. Debadutta Mohanty, Advocate (For Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2) Miss Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate (Opp. Party No.3)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA ORDER

Order No.

14.02.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Mr. Debadutta Mohanty, learned counsel and his associates enter appearance on behalf Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 by filing Vakalatnamas in Court, which are taken on record.

¶15

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2, namely, Superintending Engineer, TPCODL, Bhubaneswar and Executive Engineer, Electrical, TPCODL, Bhubaneswar, to restore power supply in respect of shop rooms standing over Plot Nos.220, 220/1248 and 220/1249 under Khata No.69 situated in mouza Bhubaneswar Town, Unit No.31, Laxmisagar-2 vide Consumer No.103S03202995.

¶16

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel submits that the Petitioners are tenants in respect of the aforesaid shop rooms. Power supply was made to the shop rooms with reference to the aforesaid consumer number and the Petitioners were paying

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

electricity dues regularly. When the matter stood thus, the Opposite Party No.3 sold the property to Ashok Kumar Rout and others. When the right of the Petitioners was affected, they filed C.S. No.2065 of 2019, which is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar for permanent injunction restraining the purchasers, namely, Ashok Kumar Rout and others, from evicting the Petitioners from the shop rooms in question. During pendency of the suit, the Opposite Party No.3 describing himself as owner of the property filed W.P.(C) No.29246 of 2022 with a prayer to direct the Executive Engineer, Electrical, TPCODL, Bhubaneswar to disconnect power supply from the aforesaid premises. This Court vide order dated 14^th November, 2022 disposed of the said writ petition with the following direction:

¶20

“4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction that in the event, the Petitioner makes a fresh application within a period of ten days enclosing the relevant documents for disconnection of power supply to his premises, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Executive Engineer (Electrical), TPCODL, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three weeks hence from the date of filing of the application along with certified copy of this order.

¶21

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the Petitioner.”

¶22

Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.3 filed an application for disconnection of power supply from the aforesaid premises. Apprehending disconnection of power supply, the

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

Petitioners preferred W.P.(C) No.34512 of 2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 16^th December, 2022 with the following direction:

¶26

“4. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case disposes of this writ petition with a direction that in the event the Petitioners file an application within a period of seven days along with certified copy of this order for reconsideration of the order, if any, passed pursuant to the direction in W.P.(C) No.29246 of 2022 to disconnect power supply from the aforesaid premises, the same shall be considered in accordance with law, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶27

5. Till disposal of the application, if filed within the stipulated period, as aforesaid, power supply to the shop room of the Petitioners shall not be disconnected.”

¶28

It is his submission that in spite of specific direction of this Court, the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners disconnected power supply on 20^th December, 2022. He further submits that although the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 34512 of 2022 was brought to the notice of Opposite Parties, more particularly to the Executive Engineer, Electrical, TPCODL, Bhubaneswar, but power supply was disconnected without adhering to the direction made in the said writ petition. As such, the Petitioners have filed CONTC No.8002 of 2022, which is pending for consideration. Since the Petitioners are earning their livelihood from the aforesaid shop rooms, finding no other alternative, they have filed this writ petition for the aforesaid direction.

¶29

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 submits that he does not have complete instruction in the matter, but the fact remains that before receiving the order

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

// 4 //

¶32

passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.34512 of 2022, power supply had already been disconnected from the aforesaid premises pursuant to the application made by Opposite Party No.3.

¶33

Miss Naidu, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3 vehemently objects to the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and contends that power supply was given in the name of father of Opposite Party No.3, namely, Bhagirathi Nayak. Since the Opposite Party No.3 did not want to continue with such power supply, he applied for disconnection of power supply, but it was not paid any heed. As such, the Opposite Party No.3 filed W.P.(C) No.29246 of 2022 and vide order dated 14^th November, 2022 (Annexure-6), the aforesaid order was passed. Pursuant to the said direction, the Opposite Party No.3 made an application to the Executive Engineer, Electrical, TPCODL, Bhubaneswar and observing the formalities, power supply to the aforesaid premises has been disconnected. Since power supply was not in the name of Petitioners in respect of the aforesaid premises, they should not object the disconnection of power supply from the aforesaid premises. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the Opposite Party No.3 had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.29246 of 2022 stating that he is the consumer of TPCODL vide No. 103S03202995. Since the Opposite Party No.3 did not want to continue such power supply to the aforesaid premises, he made an application for disconnection of power supply, but it

¶34

Page 4 of 6

¶35

// 5 //

¶36

was not considered. Subsequently, pursuant to the direction made by this Court in W.P.(C) No.29246 of 2022, the Opposite Party No.3 made an application for disconnection of power supply from the aforesaid premises and considering the same, power connection has been disconnected from the aforesaid premises. Admittedly, power supply was not made in the name of the Petitioners in respect of the aforesaid premises. Of course, there is a dispute with regard to the tenancy as well as continuance of the Petitioners in the aforesaid premises and a civil suit is pending.

¶37

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits with force that the Opposite Party No.3 being not the land owner had no competence to make an application for disconnection of power supply, but he admits that power connection stood in the name of father of Opposite Party No.3. It is also not disputed that power connection to the aforesaid premises was not in the name of the Petitioners. A controversy arises as to whether the Petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 34512 of 2022. But, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 submits that before receiving the said order, power supply from the aforesaid premises had already been disconnected in compliance of the order dated 14^th November, 2022 in W.P.(C) No.29246 of 2022. Thus, giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners before disconnection of power supply did not arise at all.

¶38

Miss Naidu, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3 also submits that the authorities have followed due procedure

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

// 6 //

¶41

before disconnection of power supply from the aforesaid premises.

¶42

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it emanates that power supply was not in the name of the Petitioners in respect of the aforesaid premises. Power supply stood in the name of father of Opposite Party No.3. Since the Opposite Party No.3 did not intend to continue such power supply after the death of his father, he is competent to make an application for disconnection of power supply. In addition to the above, this Court vide order dated 14^th November, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.29246 of 2022 directed the Executive Engineer, Electrical, TPCODL, Bhubaneswar to consider the disconnection of power supply, if a fresh application is made to that effect. Thus, the Opposite Party No.2 has committed no wrong in disconnecting power supply from the aforesaid premises on the application of Opposite Party No.3. As such, I find no merit in the writ petition.

¶43

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶44

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

¶45

application.

¶46

bks

¶47

Page 6 of 6

Sk. Ahamed Ali v. the Superintending Engineer, Tpcodl, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Ahamed Ali v. the Superintending Engineer, Tpcodl, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chintamani Maharana Vs Kasinath Maharana

Sobhadevi Agrawal Vs Manoj Kumar Agrawal

Kali Charan Manik Vs State of Odisha

Bishnupada Patra Vs Rabindra Nath Giri

Shaik [email protected] Vs Sirat Bibi

Prafulla Ku.Das Vs Sanjukta Das