[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Executive Engineer (Elect.) vs Pradipta Dash ..... Opposite Party on 9 April, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.10518 of 2026
Executive Engineer (elect.) ..... Petitioners
Keed, TPWODL, Kalahandi &
Anr.
Represented by Adv. -
Prasanta Kumar
Tripathy
-versus-
Pradipta Dash ..... Opposite Party
Represented by Adv. -
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 09.04.2026
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners. Perused the writ
application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The Petitioners have filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"That it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may, graciously, be pleased to issue Rule 'Nisi' calling
upon the O.P to show cause as to why the pending
Consumer Complaint proceeding in the file of Ld.
DCDRC., Kalahandi under Annexure-4, Series shall not
be declared as without jurisdiction in view of Judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in Anis Ahmed (supra), bad -in
law- and set aside.
And if the O.P. fails to give show cause or give
insufficient cause, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
issue a writ of certiorari declaring the entire Consumer
Complaint proceeding bearing Consumer Case No. 03
of 2026, pending in the file of by Ld. DCDRC,
Kalahandi involving assessment proceeding u/s 126 of
Act, 2003 is an abuse of process of law, illegal,
arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.
And may be further pleased to pass any other
order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended
that the sole Opposite Party as Complainant approached the
learned DCDRC, Kalahandi challenging an assessment order
passed by the Petitioners-Electricity Company. Learned counsel
for the Petitioners further contended that pursuant to the
summons issued by the learned Commission, the Petitioners
appeared and filed their written note of submission raising a
ground with regard to the maintainability of the complaint case
before the consumer forum.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in course of his
argument, referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Anis Ahmad reported
in AIR 2013 SC 2766. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it
appears that a similar question was raised before the Hon'ble
supreme Court with regard to the maintainability of the
consumer complaint before the learned DCDRC with regard to
electricity dues. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the
issue in Para-47 of the judgment has categorically held that:-
"i) In case of inconsistency between the
Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection
Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the
Consumer Forum with the power to redress any
dispute with regard to the matter which do not
come within the meaning of "service" as defined
under Section 2(1)(o) or "complaint" as defined
under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986.
ii) A "complaint" against the assessment made by
assessing officer under Section 126 or against the
offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before
a Consumer Forum.
iii)..............."
6. In view of the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Para-47 of the judgment in U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd's case (supra), learned counsel for the
Petitioners contended that since the Petitioners have approached
the learned Consumer forum against the order by the assessing
officer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the present
Consumer Complaint is not maintainable.
7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioners, this
Court is of the view that the learned DCDRC, Kalahandi is
required to examine the issue of maintainability passed in light
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.
Power Corporation Ltd (supra) at the outset. Failing which, the
Petitioners before this Court would be seriously prejudiced as
the Petitioners are required to undergo rigours of trial before the
learned Consumer Forum. In view of the aforesaid position,
since the Petitioners have already raised the issue of
maintainability before the learned DCDRC, Kalahandi and the
same is stated to be pending for adjudication, this Court deems it
proper to dispose of the present writ application by directing the
learned DCDRC, Kalahandi to decide the issue of
maintainability first by providing ample opportunity to both
sides. While considering the issue of maintainability the learned
DCDRC, Kalahandi shall take into consideration the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd
(supra). In the event the learned DCDRC, Kalahandi shows that
it has jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter, the complaint
case shall proceed on its own merits. Let the aforesaid issue be
decided by the learned DCDRC within a period of two months
from the date of communication of a copy of today's order by
the Petitioners.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
