Disposed¶28

The Executive Engineer,cesu v. Permanent Lok Adalat,Pus,Anugul

Orissa HC15 Apr 2026WP(C)/3024/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; W.P.(C) No.3024 of 2018; Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo, J.; Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) Dhenkanal-Angul; PLA Case No.19 of 2017; electricity penalty Rs.66,528; CESU Executive Engineer; joint writ petition by utility and consumer; disposal as infructuous; settlement under management Scheme; restoration of electricity supply; Rs.10,000 arrear payment; Misc. Case No.2629 of 2018; I.A. No.5876 of 2019; Special Mediation Drive 2.0 - Mediation for the Nation.

What did the court decide?

In view of the joint memo recording that the disputed amount of Rs.66,528/- was settled under a Scheme floated by the petitioner's management and that power supply was restored, the writ petition, having gone infructuous, is disposed of ¶28

The Executive Engineer,cesu Vs Permanent Lok Adalat,Pus,Anugul — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.3024 of 2018

¶3

The Executive Engineer (CESU) and another

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. D.K. Mohanty, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Permanent Lok Adalat, PUS, Dhenkanal-Angul, Dhenkanal and another

¶8

…. Opp. Parties

¶9

Ms. Susamarani Sahoo, Advocate Mr. R.K. Tripathy, Advocate

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

ORDER

15.04.2026

(Hybrid Mode)

Order No.

09. 1 . The matter being in the list is mentioned jointly by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶16

2. The petitioner no.1 is the electricity supply utility represented through its Executive Engineer and the opposite party no.2 is entity who has some business relationship with the opposite party no.1. They jointly have filed the writ application challenging the award dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat(PUS), Dhenkanal-Angul at Dhenkanal in PLA Case No.19 of 2017.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

The said PLA case was filed by the opposite party no.2-applicant challenging the assessment with regard to the amount of penalty of Rs.66,528/-. The said penalty was imposed by the petitioner herein, the opposite party no.2 being the consumer of the electricity.

¶19

3. The matter was presented before this Court on 19.02.2018. Notices were issued by the coordinate Bench by order dated 19.03.2018 and by interim order dated 19.03.2018 in Misc. Case No.2629 of 2018, the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat was directed to be kept in abeyance.

¶20

Thereafter, directions were issued by order dated 04.04.2019 in I.A. No.5876 of 2019 directing restoration of supply of electricity subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) towards arrear with further direction that the O.P. No.2 consumer should pay the current electricity dues.

¶21

4. The matter was listed on 11.03.2026 under the heading ‘FOR REFERRAL TO THE SPECIAL MEDIATION DRIVE 2.0-MEDIATION FOR THE NATION’.

¶22

5. Today, memo of date is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as opposite party no.2, which states thus:

¶23

“In view of the further development with regard to disputed amount of Rs.66,528/- being settled by a Scheme floated by the petitioner’s management and power supply has been

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

restored, the writ petition has gone infructuous. It is therefore the writ petition may be disposed of accordingly.”

¶26

The memo is taken on record. Scanned copy be

¶27

updated.

¶28

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)