[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Exe. Engnr. (Electrical) vs Appellate Authority on 20 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.2271 of 2014
Exe. Engnr. (Electrical), ..... Petitioner
Nuapada Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
along with
Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Appellate Authority, Rourkela ..... Opposite Parties
&Ors.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
20.02.2026
Order No.07
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner along with Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel. In spite of
due service of notice, no appearance has been made by Opp. Party
No. 2.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Writ
Petitioner/Distribution Company challenging order dtd.02.03.2013
so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-7.
4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
basing on the report submitted with regard to unauthorized use of
electricity by Opp. Party No. 2, provisional assessment order was
passed against the consumer vide order dtd.26.07.2012 under
Annexure-2. In the said order, the Consumer-Opp. Party No. 2 was
held liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,89,921/-. After considering the
objection so filed by the consumer, final assessment order was
passed on 16.08.2012 under Annexure-4 and as per the said order
Opp. Party No. 2 was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,29,031/-
towards electricity dues and Rs.60,890/- towards DC for such
unauthorized use of electricity.
4.1. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
challenging such final assessment order, Opp. Party No. 2 moved
the appellate authority by filing Case No. AFO 2 of 2012. While
taking up the appeal, the appellate authority directed for fresh
verification of the meter by the Petitioner-Company and so also by
the Standard Test Laboratory functioning under the State Govt..
4.2. It is contended that in the Meter Testing Report so prepared by
the Petitioner-Company (MRT) though it was held that Opp. Party
No. 2 has unauthorizedly used electricity and accordingly the final
assessment order has been passed against him, but in the report
submitted by the STL, Govt. of Odisha under Annexure-6, it was
held that Opp. Party No. 2 has not used electricity unauthorizedly
and the meter results are found satisfactory during the testing
period. Such a report was submitted by the Assistant Engineer
(Testing) STL, Odisha on 29.01.2012 under Annexure-6.
4.3. It is contended that the appellate authority without relying on
the MTR so prepared by the Petitioner-Company under Annexure-
5, only relied on the other report prepared by the State Testing
Laboratory under Annexure-6 and held that the consumer-opp.
Party No. 2 has not used any electricity unauthorizedly and
accordingly set aside the final assessment order dtd.02.03.2013
under Annexure-7. The appellate authority while allowing the
appeal vide the impugned order dtd.02.03.2013, directed the
Petitioner-Company to adjust the amount deposited by the Opp.
Party No. 2 while preferring the appeal to the tune of Rs.5,44,961/-.
4.4. It is the main contention of the learned Sr. Counsel appearing
for the Petitioner that since the appellate authority only relied on the
report submitted by the State Testing Laboratory under Annexure-6
and not the other report prepared by the Company under Annexure-
5, the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4.5. It is also contended that in view of the report prepared under
Annexure-5 vis-a-vis Annexure-6, the appellate authority could not
have relied on the report under Annexure-6 without any reason and
basis. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order requires
interference of this Court.
5. Even though on the face of due service of notice, no appearance
has been made by Opp. Party No. 2, but this Court after going
through the records, finds that alleging unauthorised use of
electricity, provisional assessment order was passed by the
Petitioner on 26.07.2012 under Annexure-2. Subsequently, the final
assessment order was passed on 16.08.2012 under Annexure-4 by
holding the Consumer-Opp. Party No. 2 liable to pay a sum of
Rs.10,29,031/- towards EC and Rs.60,890/- towards DC.
5.1. Challenging such final assessment order, Opp. Party No.2
preferred an appeal before the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 1
in Case No. AFO 2 of 2012. As found, during pendency of the
appeal, two testing reports were submitted, one by the Petitioner-
Company and other by the State Testing Laboratory under
Annexure-5 & 6. In the report prepared by the Petitioner-Company
under Annexure-5, though it was held that Petitioner has
unauthorizedly used electricity and accordingly liable to pay the
amount so assessed in the final assessment order, but in the report
prepared by the State Testing Laboratory under Annexure-6, it was
held that Petitioner has not used any electricity unauthorizedly and
the meter result was found satisfactory.
5.2. It is found that the appellate authority relying on the report
prepared by the State Testing Laboratory under Annexure-6, set
aside the final assessment order so issued under Annexure-4. While
setting aside the final assessment order, the appellate authority
directed the Petitioner-Company to adjust the amount deposited by
Opp. Party No. 2 to the tune of Rs.5,44,961/-, which was deposited
by him while preferring the appeal.
5.3. This Court taking into account the report available under
Annexure-5 vis-a-vis Annexure-6, is of the view that the appellate
authority has rightly relied on the report prepared by the State
Testing Laboratory under Annexure-6, which is more authentic and
genuine as well as trust worthy.
5.3. It is also the view of this Court that the report prepared by the
State Testing Laboratory will prevail over the report prepared by
the Petitioner-Company under Annexure-5. Therefore, this Court
finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order passed by
the appellate authority on dt.02.03.2013 under Annexure-6 and
dismiss the writ petition accordingly.
6. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 26-Feb-2026 19:01:48
