Orissa High Court
Executive Engineer (Elect.) vs Pratima Mahapatra ..... Opposite Party on 19 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.4653 of 2026
Executive Engineer (Elect.)- ..... Petitioners
cum-S.E. Elect., Bargarh
Electrical Division, TPWODL,
Bargarh & Ors.
Represented by Adv. -
Prasanta Kumar
Tripathy
-versus-
Pratima Mahapatra ..... Opposite Party
Represented by Adv. -
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
19.02.2026 Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners on the question of maintainability.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that by filing the present writ application the Petitioners seek to challenge order dated 19.05.2025 passed in C.C. No.115 of 2024 at Annexure-4 by the learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bargarh.
4. On perusal of the impugned judgment at Annexure-4, it appears that the Opposite Party-Complainant approached the Page 1 of 5. learned DCDRC, Bargarh by filing a complaint therein alleging that the electricity supply to the premises of the complainant was suddenly stopped, thereafter the complaint has been lodged before the learned DCDRC, Bargarh bearing CC No.115 of 2024. It has also been stated that the Opposite Parties did not serve any prior notice before disconnection of the electricity. Being harassed by such conduct of the Petitioners, the complainant approached the learned DCDRC alleging deficiency in service by the Petitioners. The learned DCDRC, Bargarh by virtue of the impugned judgment dated 19.05.2025 at Annexure-4 has held that the Opposite Parties to the complaint case are jointly and severally liable and they were directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- only towards litigation expenses to the complainant within one month. Failing which, the entire amount will carry 12% interest per annum till realisation.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the learned DCDRC, Bargarh, the Opposite Parties in the complaint case has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that subsequent to the restoration of the electricity connection, the complaint was preferred by the Opposite Party. He further contended that the disconnection of the electricity connection to the premises of the complainant was due to a complaint lodged by the villagers. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service. With regard to the maintainability of the present writ application learned counsel for the Petitioners Page 2 of 5. referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UP Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad reported in AIR (2013) Supreme Court 2766. By referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the present writ application is maintainable as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above noted judgment.
6. On perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UP Power Corporation Ltd.'s case (supra), this Court found that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the maintainability of complaint case before the Consumer fora in a dispute involving the supply of electricity held in Para-47 (iii) of the judgment as follows-:
iii) "The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider or "if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service"; or "hazardous services"; or "the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law".
7. On a careful analysis of the ratio laid down in Para-47 (iii) of the judgement in UP Power Corporation Ltd., this Court observes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for redressal of the grievance of a person who falls within the definition of a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Page 3 of 5. Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider"; or "if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service"; or "hazardous services"; or "the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law". On a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case, it appears that alleging deficiency in service the complainant had initially approached the learned DCDRC, Bargarh for redressal of his grievance. Thus, the consumer fora has jurisdiction to entertain such complaint in terms of finding in Para-47 of the judgment in UP Power Corporation Ltd.'s case (supra).
8. With regard to the maintainability of the present writ application, although the orders passed by the learned DCDRC, Bargarh is amendable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court in terms of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in such view of the matter the present writ application can be entertained against the order passed by the learned DCDRC, however, the same is on limited grounds. So far, the grounds on which writ petition can be entertained the same has been elaborately discussed in the judgment in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others (AIR 1999 SC 22). On a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case, this Court is of the view that none of the grounds mentioned in the judgment of Whirlpool Corporation's case (supra) is made out in Page 4 of 5. the present writ application. Thus, this Court is of the view that the present writ application is not maintainable.
9. Furthermore, while disposing of the present writ application, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioners to approach the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission by filing a properly construed appeal as provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order along with an application for condonation of delay. In such eventuality, the learned State Consumer Commission shall consider the application for condonation of delay liberally taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioners has approached this Court by filing the present writ application under a wrong impression and pass necessary orders thereon.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Certified copy of the impugned orders under Anexure-4 be returned to the learned counsel for the Petitioners by substituting the same with the attested Xerox copy thereof.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5. Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Feb-2026 13:59:28