M/S. Gtl Infrastructure Ltd vs The Executive Engineer .... Opp. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8165 Ori

Orissa High Court

M/S. Gtl Infrastructure Ltd vs The Executive Engineer .... Opp. ... on 12 September, 2025

Author: S.K. Sahoo

Bench: S.K. Sahoo

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          W.P.(C) No.21373 of 2025

             M/s. GTL Infrastructure Ltd.,           ...            Petitioner
             Khordha

                                    Mr.Falguni Rajguru Mohapatra,
                                    Advocate

                                   -versus-
             The Executive Engineer                  ....     Opp. Parties
             (Elect.), TPSODL, Ganjam and
             others


                               CORAM:
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA
                                ORDER

Order No. 12.09.2025

01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement

(video conferencing/physical mode).

The petitioner M/s. GTL Infrastructure Ltd., Khordha has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by opposite party no.2, the Electricity Ombudsman-II in Consumer Representation Case No. OM-(1I)(S)-02/2025 under Annexure-6 confirming the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by learned GRF in GRF Case No. 492/2024 under Annexure-3, whereby the representation of the petitioner has been dismissed.

From the factual scenario, it appears that the petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of the installation and maintenance of passive infrastructures/ Telecom Towers for licensed Telecom Operators. The opposite party no.1 Electrical Division, GNED, TPSODL, Chhatrapur is the provider of electricity services to the petitioner's premises. The petitioner filed a complaint on 26.11.2024 requesting for reconciliation of

old arrear bill amount and for new EB Connection against CA No.211001020299. At that site, EB has been disconnected since long to electrify the tower, electricity power connection is required on an urgent basis, the petitioner approached the Electrical Division, GNED, TPSODL, Chhatrapur for providing new EB connection after completing all formalities. A demand of Rs.6,37,529/- has been reflected in their ledger which was calculated for the provisional billing and the Division Office insisted for payment of the whole arrear amount without reconciliation and only thereafter, new EB connection would be possible. The billed unit of the Mobile Tower has been taken as average from the month of December, 2009 to July 2014. The opposite party no.1 in their reply before the Grievance Redressal Forum submitted that the billing to the consumer has been made till 07/2014 . The electricity connection was permanently disconnected from 08/2014 for non-payment of outstanding electricity dues and an amount of Rs.6,37,529/- has been shown as an outstanding arrear due against the petitioner. It was also contended that since power supply of the petitioner has been disconnected for non-payment of outstanding electricity dues, the same will be restored only after payment of the outstanding electricity dues as per Regulation 163 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019. Though the petitioner prayed before the GRF, Berhampur to reconcile the old arrear dues and to consider for new EB connection of the petitioner's telecom site, the learned GRF rejected such prayer. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Ombudsman in the aforesaid representation case wherein it was prayed

(i) to revise the electricity bill for the disputed period from December, 2009 to June, 2011 based on accurate meter readings and actual consumption;

(ii) to compensate for the financial losses suffered by the petitioner; and

(iii) to consider for new EB connection of the petitioner at the site and restore the Power Supply.

The opposite party no.1 filed objection before the Ombudsman, inter alia, on the ground that complaint was registered before the GRF, Berhampur vide C.C. No.492/2024 with the grievance that M/s. Dishnet Wireless Ltd. was a regular paying consumer of GNED having Consumer No 211001020299 which was disconnected since long and it was requested to reconnect the power supply to the mobile tower and need for reconciliation/revision of the bill for payment and reconnection of power supply. It is further stated that M/s. Dishnet Wireless Pvt. Ltd. availed power supply from 16.10.2009 and the consumer was billed till July, 2014 and thereafter the electricity connection was permanently disconnected from August 2014 having an arrear of Rs.6,37,529/-. It was further urged by the opposite party no.1 before the Ombudsman that since the power supply of the consumer has been disconnected for non-payment of outstanding electricity dues, the power supply to the premises of the consumer will be restored only after payment of the outstanding electricity dues as per Regulation 163 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019 (in short, Code, 2019").

Learned Ombudsman dealt with all the points raised by the petitioner, which are as follows:

(i) The demand is barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003;

(ii) Onus is on the DISCOM to maintain and provide proof of disconnection under Regulation 18 of the OERG Code 2004;

(iii) Application of Regulation 100 of the OERC Code 2004, to the timelines of disconnection and its impact on arrears claim (interrelates with Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act 2003;

(iv) No liability can arise in the absence of actual consumption or supply.

(v) Provisional/average billing without meter reading or consumption is unsustainable.

(vi) GRF erred in accepting respondent's contradictory version of disconnection date.

(vii) Impugned order is legally unsustainable for ignoring limitation and misapplying facts."

Learned Ombudsman after due consideration of the above issues and by taking into account Regulation 10(ii) of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code 2004 (in short 'Code 2004') held that since the petitioner has taken power supply to the tower from M/s. Disnet Wireless Ltd., it is liable to pay the arrear dues.

Regulation 10(ii) of the Code, 2019 reads as follows:

"Where applicant has purchased existing property and connection is lying disconnected, it shall be the duty of the applicant to verify that the previous owner has paid ail dues to the Licensee and has obtained 'no dues certificate' from the Licensee, in case "no dues certificate" is not obtained by the previous owner, the applicant before purchase of property may approach the Engineer of the Licensee for a "no dues certificate" xxxxxxxx"

Learned Ombudsman further observed that "no due certificate" was neither obtained by the previous owner nor by the petitioner. It was further found that the petitioner requested

the Executive Engineer TPSODL for a new connection to site In November 2024, i.e. after more than ten years since the bill was stopped in August 2014 and therefore, on the request of the petitioner, the revision of the bill was made in 2024 in accordance with Regulation 157 of the Code 2019. The contention raised by the petitioner before the Ombudsman that the exact date of disconnection of power supply to Consumer No. 211001020299 is not available. It was held that the petitioner has taken over the assets long after billing was stopped and therefore, it was unable to provide any document or evidence regarding the date of disconnection. Learned GRF directed the opposite party for a field enquiry and submitted the report before the GRF to the effect that power supply to the site is lying disconnected since October 2013. Accordingly, order was passed by the learned GRF. It was held by the learned Ombudsman that there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the learned GRF and hence, the representation was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied". Therefore, the demand of the opposite party no.1 towards the arrear dues for the period from 2009 to July 2014 was not justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited -Vrs.- M/s. Rahamatullah Khan @ Rahamjulla Khan reported in (2020) 4 SCC 571, wherein it is held that where no steps are taken to recover the dues for

more than two years, and the dues are not shown continuously as recoverable, the bar under Section 56(2) squarely applies.

In the case in hand, after going through the impugned orders and the pleadings of the parties, we find that the petitioner has taken over the merger/acquisition of assets of DISCOM Wireless Ltd. and therefore, the petitioner was required to pay the outstanding electricity dues. Since the petitioner has not obtained the no due certificate from the previous owner and applied for the new connection to the site in November, 2024, we are of the view that in the absence of the no due certificate either by the present petitioner or by the previous owner, the liability continues to be recovered and hence, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned GRF and the Ombudsman under Annexures-3 and 6.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

PKSahoo

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA