Disposed¶29

Dillip Kumar Sahoo v. Tpcodl Tp Central, Odisha Distribution Ltd., Bbsr

Orissa HC15 Apr 2025WP(C)/2013/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 135 Electricity Act 2003; notice to deceased consumer; quashing of demand notice; TPCODL outstanding dues; Sankar Sahoo died 09.07.2014; change of name of electricity connection; WP(C) No.2013 of 2025; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Aditya Kumar Mohapatra; disposed of 15.04.2025; Rs.51,037/-.

What did the court decide?

Notice dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure-1) and the consequential action taken pursuant to it quashed; liberty given to TPCODL to issue a fresh notice to the actual consumer with an opportunity to object and pass follow-up assessment orders; Petitioner directed to submit an application for change of name within a week. ¶29

Dillip Kumar Sahoo Vs Tpcodl Tp Central, Odisha Distribution Ltd., Bbsr — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure-1) issued by TPCODL against a deceased consumer (Sankar Sahoo) is valid, and whether the notice and the consequent proceedings should be quashed.

¶28

Court's answer

Proceedings cannot be initiated against the Petitioner by issuing a notice against a dead person; accordingly, the notice under Annexure-1 is hereby quashed.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The consequential action taken pursuant to the quashed notice is also quashed.

¶28

Key takeaways

Liberty is given to the Opposite Party-Electricity Company to issue notice to the actual consumer, provide an opportunity to such consumer, consider their objection and pass necessary follow-up orders while carrying out the assessment.ratio¶28
The Petitioner is directed to take appropriate steps for change of the name by submitting an application within a week from the date of the order, along with a copy of the order.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Electricity dues recovery — Demand notice dated 08.11.2024 (Notice No. 0010106194) under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 issued by TPCODL in the name of consumer Sankar Sahoo, who had died on 09.07.2014, demanding Rs.51,037/-. High Court of Orissa (A.K. Mohapatra, J.), disposing of WP(C) No.2013 of 2025 filed by Dillip Kumar Sahoo, held that proceedings cannot be initiated against a person by issuing a notice against a dead person; quashed the notice and all consequential action taken pursuant to it. Liberty given to the Distribution Company to issue a fresh notice to the actual consumer, provide an opportunity to object, and pass follow-up orders while carrying out the assessment; Petitioner directed to apply for change of name of the connection within a week.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.2013 of 2025

¶2

Dillip Kumar Sahoo

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. - Pramod Kumar Rout

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Tpcodl Tp Central, Odisha

¶7

.....

¶8

Opposite Parties

¶9

Distribution Ltd., Bbsr & Ors.

¶10

Represented By Adv. – L.K. Moharana, Adv. for TPCODL

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

15.04.2025

Order No.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the TPCODL-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶19

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶20

“Under the above facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner fervently prays before this Hon'ble Court to admit this Writ petition and call for the relevant documents from the Opp. Parties concerned and after hearing the opp. parties to quash the notice dated 8.11.2024 bearing Notice No. 0010106194 as Annexure1 in the interest of justice;

¶21

And further prays any appropriate order /orders, direction/ directions may kindly be passed in favour of

¶22

Page 1 of 3.

¶23

petitioner circumstances of the case.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that being aggrieved by the notice dated 08.11.2024 under Annexure-1, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. He further contended that notice under Annexure-1 has been issued against one Sankar Sahoo. He further contended that abovenamed Sankar Sahoo died on 09.07.2014. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that under impugned notice dated 08.11.2024, a sum of Rs.51,037.00/- has been demanded from a dead person. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the proceeding pursuant to the notice under Annexue-1 is invalid.

¶25

Learned counsel for the TPCODL on the other hand contended that although the consumer, in whose name the electricity connection has been provided, died since 2014, however, such fact was never intimated to the Opposite Party-Distribution Company. Since the Petitioner was using the electricity connection which was initially granted in favour of the above named noticee to the Opposite Party have issued notice to the above named consumer. He further contended that since there is an outstanding dues against the aforesaid electricity consumer number, notice was issued under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the TPCODL submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in issuing the notice under Annexure-1.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents annexed to the present writ application, this Court is of

¶27

Page 2 of 3.

¶28

the view that the proceeding cannot be initiated against the Petitioner by issuing a notice against the dead person. Therefore, the notice under Annexure-1 is hereby quashed. Further, the consequential action taken pursuant to such notice is also quashed. However, liberty is given to the Opposite Party-Electricity Company to issue notice to the actual consumer in the meantime and after providing an opportunity to such consumer, and upon due consideration of their objection, necessary follow up orders be passed while carrying out the assessment by the Opposite PartyLicensee Company. Further, the Petitioner is directed to take appropriate steps for change of the name by submitting an application within a week from today along with a copy of today’s order.

¶29

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶31

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶32

Anil

¶33

Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3.

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Apr-2025 11:27:35

Dillip Kumar Sahoo v. Tpcodl Tp Central, Odisha Distribution Ltd., Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dillip Kumar Sahoo v. Tpcodl Tp Central, Odisha Distribution Ltd., Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susil Kumar Baral Vs Amit Kumar Garg,Ceo,Tpsodl,Ganjam

Dr. Swapna Sarit Vs State of Odisha

Muralidhar Sethi Vs Dipesh Patnaik, I.P.S.

Zedking Security Services, Bbsr Vs Epfo, Bbsr

Narottam Dash Vs State of Odisha

Ranjit Kumar Khilar Vs State of Odisha