KADAMBINI PARIJA v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), TPCODL, KENDRAPARA ELECTRICAL DIVISION-II, MARSHAGHAI
Court: High Court of Orissa
Bench: MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Orissa judgment dated 2026-04-09. KADAMBINI PARIJA v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), TPCODL, KENDRAPARA ELECTRICAL DIVISION-II, MARSHAGHAI....
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 9324 of 2026 Kadambini Parija ..... Petitioner Mr. S. Behera, Advocate -versus- Executive Engineer ..... Opposite Parties (Electrical), TPCODL, Mr. L. K. Maharana, Advocate Kendrapara & Ors. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 09. 04. 2026 Order No. 02 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S. Behera, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. L. K. Maharana, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In the above circumstances it is humbly prayed to this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue notice tas to why theis case shall not be allowed and the opp party shall not be directed to waive out the imposition of fine vide Annexure-5 and illegal collection of Rs. 4895/-vide Annexure-6 shall not be returned for the interest of justice.
And further be pleased to pass any other order(s) direction(s), writ(s) as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper for the ends of justice; And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound shall ever pray. ” Page 1 of 2. 4. It is contended that Petitioner though is paying his electricity dues regularly, but a demand notice has been issued, wherein demand has been raised to an extent of Rs. 13,080/-. It is contended that since Petitioner is paying his bills regularly, there was no occasion for having any arrear so indicated in Annexure-5. 5. Learned counsel appearing for TPCODL on instruction contended that admittedly there is some arrear with regard to the demand so raised under Annexure-5 and it will be corrected considering the representation filed by the Petitioner under Annexure-8. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party No.
2 to take a decision on Annexure-8 by reconciling the consumer number and the payments made by the consumer all through and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Let such a decision be taken within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 6. 1. Till such a decision is taken, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner, subject to payment of the current dues as due and admissible. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Page 2 of 2.
Source: High Court of Orissa. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.