Disposed¶22

Renubala Swain v. Tata Power Centra(Tpcodl) Odisha Distribution Ltd., Bhubaneswar

Orissa HC28 Jan 2026WP(C)/210/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court writ petition disposed; TPCODL new electricity connection application rejected; ROR set aside by Competent Court; occupier's vested right under Regulation 14 of 2019 Regulation raised; liberty to file fresh application as occupier; Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy; order dated 28.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application as occupier for a new electricity connection, such application to be considered in accordance with the Regulation. ¶22

Renubala Swain Vs Tata Power Centra(Tpcodl) Odisha Distribution Ltd., Bhubaneswar — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.210 of 2026

¶2

Renubala Swain

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

TATA Power Central (TPCODL) Odisha Distribution Ltd., Bhubaneswar and Others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

Ms. R. Jena, Advocate on behalf of Mr. L.K. Maharana, Advocate for TPCODL

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No

28.01.2026

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

¶14

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

3 . Pursuant to order dated 07.01.2026 and 13.01.2026, learned counsel appearing for the TPCODL produced the instruction by way of a memo with service of copy on the learned counsel for the petitioner in Court.

¶16

4 . Basing on the instruction, it is contended that claim of the petitioner for having a new connection so made under Annexure-2 series, has already been rejected on the ground that the ROR so enclosed with the application showing the

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

right, title and interest of the petitioner over the property in question, has already been set aside in the meantime by the Competent Court.

¶19

4.1 . It is accordingly contended that since application made by the petitioner to have a new connection has already been rejected, no direction can be issued as prayed for.

¶20

5 . At this point of time, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if petitioner is treated as an occupier over the disputed land, he has also got the vested right for having electricity connection in terms of the provisions contained under Regulation 14 of the 2019 Regulation.

¶21

6 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submissions made and since the application made by the petitioner to have a new connection has already been rejected, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction as prayed for. It is open for the petitioner to make a fresh application being the occupier over the property in question. If any such application will be filed, it will be considered in accordance with the Regulation.

¶22

7 . The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶23

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

¶24

Judge

¶25

Basudev

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 30-Jan-2026 11:03:18