[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Kailash Chandra Lenka vs Executive Engineer on 16 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20399 of 2025
Kailash Chandra Lenka .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate
-versus-
Executive Engineer,
Electrical Division
TPCODL, BBSR and
Others
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. L.K. Maharana, Advocate for TPCODL
Mr. S.P Das, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
16.03.2026
Order No.
14. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer:-
"Under such Circumstances the Petitioner therefore
Pray that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be Pleased to
Admit the Writ Application, issue Rule NISI Calling upon
the 0pp. Parties more especially to 0pp. Party No-3 to
Show Cause as to why the Electric disconnection to the
House of the Petitioner shall not be declared as illegal
and malafide one.
And upon Showing no Cause or insufficient Cause
the Rule be made absolute by allowing the Writ
Application with a subsequent direction to the 0pp.
Parties more especially to 0pp. Party No-3 to restore the
Electric connection to the House of the Petitioner
// 2 //
forthwith and to take necessary Steps for Shifting of
33K.V Electric Wire lying over the Plot of the Petitioner."
4. Considering the nature of relief claimed, this
Court passed the following order on 24.09.2025:_
"1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner produced
the copy of order dt.17.09.2025 wherein the dispute filed
by the Petitioner before the District Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission, Khurda, Bhubaneswar in CC
No.20 of 2025 was treated as dropped. Copy of the order
be kept on record.
4. Mr. L.K. Moharana, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the TPCODL contended that Petitioner since is
making construction of a residential house below the 33
KV line endangering life and property of himself and his
family as well as general public, power supply was
disconnected to the Petitioner's premises as a
precautionary measure. It is also contended that some
mishap has already happened.
5. Mr. M. Chand, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner on the other hand contended that Petitioner will
take all precautionary measure so that such thing does
not happen in future.
6. Considering the submission and to sort out the
dispute, it is the view of this Court, a fresh inquiry is
required to be conducted by the TPCODL in presence of
the Petitioner with submission of the report before this
Court. This Court directs the authority who will conduct
the inquiry to indicate as to whether by taking
precautionary measures, power supply can be restored.
6.1. In order to avoid delay, this Court directs Mr. L.K.
Moharana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
TPCODL to cause the inquiry through Opp. Party No.2, in
presence of the Petitioner on 8th October, 2025 and
submit a report on or before 15th October, 2025.
Рetitioner is also directed to remain present in the enquiry
on 8.10.2025 without fail.
7. List this matter on 17.10.2025."
// 3 //
4.1. Pursuant to such order passed on 24.09.2025,
when a report was submitted by the Executive
Engineer, further order was passed by this Court on
23.10.2025 which reads as follows:-
"1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Perused the enquiry report submitted by the Executive
Engineer pursuant to order dtd.17.10.2025.
4. Basing on the report, learned counsel appearing for the
TPCODL contended that in case of the present nature,
taking into account the risk involved, it is the Electrical
Inspector who is to conduct an inspection and take a final
decision as to whether power supply can be provided to
the Petitioner's premises in terms of the provision
contained under Regulation 65 of the Central Electricity
Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply)
Regulations, 2023. Regulation 65 of the Regulations reads
as follows:-
"65. Erection or alteration of buildings, structures,
flood banks and elevation of roads. - (1) If at any time
subsequent to the erection of an overhead line, whether
covered with insulating material or not or underground
cable, any person proposes to erect a new building or
structure of flood bank or to raise any road level or to carry
out any other type of work whether permanent or
temporary or to make in or upon any building of structure
or flood bank or road, any permanent or temporary
addition or alteration, such person and the contractor
whom he employs to carry out the erection, addition or
alteration, shall give intimation in writing of his intention to
do so, to the supplier or owner and to the Electrical
Inspector and shall furnish therewith a scale drawing
showing the proposed building, structure, flood bank, road
or any addition or alteration and scaffolding thereof
required during the construction.
(2) On receipt of such intimation, the supplier or owner
shall examine,-
(a) whether the overhead line or underground cable
under reference was laid in accordance with the provisions
of these regulations and any other law for the time being
in force;
// 4 //
(b) whether it is technically feasible;
(c) whether it meets the requirement of right of way;
and
(d) whether such person was liable to pay the cost
of alteration of the overhead line or underground cable and
if so, issue a notice within a period of thirty days to such
person together with an estimate of the cost of the
expenditure likely to be incurred to alter the overhead line
or underground cable and require him to deposit, within
thirty days of the receipt of the notice, with the supplier or
owner, the amount of the estimated cost.
(3) If such person disputes the cost of alteration of the
overhead line or underground cable estimated by the
supplier or owner or even the responsibility to pay such
cost, the dispute may be referred to the Electrical Inspector
who shall after hearing both parties decide upon the issue
in accordance with sub-regulation (4).
(4) The Electrical Inspector shall estimate the cost of
alteration of overhead line or underground cable on the
following basis, namely: -
(a) the cost of material used for the alteration after
accounting for the depreciated cost of the material of the
existing line or underground cable;
(b) the wages of labour employed in the alteration; and
(c) the supervision charge to the extent of fifteen per cent
of the wages mentioned in clause (b) and charges incurred
by the owner or supplier or consumer in complying with
the provisions of section 67 of the Act, in respect of
alterations.
(5) Any addition or alteration to the building or structure
shall be allowed only after the deposit of such estimated
cost to the supplier or owner.
(6) No work upon such building, structure, flood bank, road
and addition or alteration thereto shall commence or
continue until the Electrical Inspector certifies that
regulations 60, 62, 63, 66 and regulation 79 have not been
contravened either during or after the construction:
Provided that the Electrical Inspector may, if he is
satisfied that the overhead line or underground cable has
been so guarded as to secure the protection of persons or
property from injury, certify within fifteen days that the
work may be executed prior to the alteration of the
// 5 //
overhead line or underground cable or in the case of
temporary addition or alteration, without alteration of the
overhead line or underground cable.
(7) The supplier or owner shall, on receipt of such
deposit, alter the overhead line or underground cable in
such a way that it does not contravene the regulations 60,
62, 63 and 79 either during or after such construction
within two months from the date of such deposit or within
such longer period as the Electrical Inspector may permit
for reasons to be recorded in writing."
5. Mr. L.K. Maharana, learned counsel appearing for the
TPCODL contended that in terms of the provisions
contained under Regulation 65(3), the Electrical Inspector
is to take a final decision on the issue by causing an
inspection.
6. This Court after going though the said provision, also
finds that it is the Electrical Inspector who can take a final
decision after hearing both the Parties.
6.1. In that view of the matter, this Court permits the
Petitioner to move the Electrical Inspector, Khruda at
Bhubaneswar along with a copy of this order. On receipt of
this order, the concerned Electrical Inspector shall cause an
inspection and submit his report after hearing both the
sides before this Court. Petitioner is directed to provide a
copy of this order before the Electrical Inspector on 28th
October, 2025. On being provided with the order, the
concerned Electrical Inspector shall do the needful as
directed hereinabove and submit the report by 7th
November, 2025.
7. As requested, list this matter on 10th November, 2025. "
4.2. However, when pursuant to the said report
submitted by the Executive Engineer on 17.10.2025, a
submission was made that petitioner has to pay a lump
sum amount to take electricity connection to his
premises, this Court passed the following order on
10.11.2025:-
"1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
// 6 //
3. Pursuant to order dated 23.10.2025, learned counsel
for the petitioner produced the report submitted by the
Addl. Chief Electrical Engineer, Bhubaneswar vide his
letter dated 06.11.2025. The same be kept in record.
4. Considering the recommendation made in the report,
learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in order
to comply the recommendation, petitioner has to pay a
lump sum amount. But instead of determining the amount
involved, since the recommendation has been made, the
Electrical Inspector be directed to give abstract of the
amount to be spent by the petitioner while complying the
recommendation.
5. In view of the submissions made, this Court directs
Addl. Chief Electrical Engineer, Bhubaneswar who has
submitted the report dated 06.11.2025 to apprise this
Court with regard to the cost involved for compliance of
the recommendation with due consultation with Opp.
Party No.1. Such a report be submitted before this Court
on or before 28.11.2025.
6. As requested, list this matter in the week commencing
01.12.2025."
4.3. Pursuant to such order passed by this Court on
10.11.2025, Addl. Chief Engineer-cum-Electrical
Inspector, Bhubaneswar produced the cost involved for
alteration of the 33K.V. overhead line passing over the
petitioner's premises vide his report dated 16.02.2026.
This Court after going through the said report dated
16.02.2026, finds that the Electrical Inspector has
assessed the cost of such alternation at
Rs.40,46,901.07/-.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly contended
that he is ready and willing to execute the work
through his own contractor by depositing 6% of the
assessed cost before the authorities of TPCODL and the
// 7 //
work be executed under the supervision of the
authorities of TPCODL.
6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel and learned
counsel appearing for TPCODL has no serious objection
to the course of action proposed by the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court while
disposing the Writ Petition, permits the petitioner to
deposit 6% of the assessed cost reflected in the report
dated 16.02.2026 before Opp. Party No.1 on or before
10.04.2026. On such deposit of the amount, petitioner
will be permitted to execute the work in question
through his own contractor, but subject to supervision
of Opp. Party No.1
8. With the aforesaid liberty, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
