[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Mishra Construction Pvt. Ltd vs Nesco And Others .... Opposite Parties on 16 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.33357 of 2011
Mishra Construction Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Mishra,
Advocate
-versus-
NESCO and Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
16.03.2026
Order No
09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. On the oral prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner,
he is permitted to change the description of the Distribution
Company as TPNODL in Court today.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging the impugned communication issued by Opp. Party
No.2 under Annexure-3. Vide the said communication, petitioner
was held liable to pay the arrear dues as was payable by the
previous consumer i.e. Odisha Oil Industries Ltd. (in Liquidation).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner
took over the possession of the company in question, after the same
was put into auction by the Court. It is also contended that while
// 2 //
taking possession of the company through Court, it was with the
understanding that the Official Liquidator shall clear the arrear
electricity dues before handing over possession to the present
petitioner. But on the face of such order passed by this Court in
COPET No.9 of 2003, the liability has been saddled on the
petitioner with issuance of the impugned communication under
Annexure-3.
5.1. It is also contended that in view of the decision of this Court
in the case of Anshuman Behera v. Orissa State Financial
Corporation and Others, 107 (2009) CLT 760 and in Ajay Kumar
Agrawal v. O.S.F.C. and Others, 2006 (Supp.-II) OLR 407,
petitioner is not liable to pay the electricity dues as due and
admissible to the previous Company i.e. Odisha Oil Industries Ltd..
5.2. It is accordingly contended that liability saddled on the
petitioner with issuance of Annexure-3, requires interference of this
Court. It is further contended that in terms of the order dated
21.11.2012, petitioner has been provided with a new connection
and petitioner is paying the current dues as due and admissible.
6. Learned counsel appearing for TPNODL on the other hand
contended that even though vide order dated 03.09.2009 in COPET
No.9 of 2003, the Official Liquidator was directed to pay arrear
electricity dues before handing over the possession of the company
to the present petitioner, but since the Official Liquidator did not
act in terms of the said order, petitioner was issued with the
impugned demand notice under Annexure-3. Order dated
03.09.2009 passed in COPET No.9 of 2003 so available under
Annexure-B Series reads as follows:-
// 3 //
"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is
directed that on 14.9.2009 at 11:00 AM the Official Liquidator as
well as the authorized representatives of M/s. Dinesh Das and Sons
Mines and Steels Private Limited and M/s. Mishra Constructions
Private Limited shall remain present at the spot. The Investigating
Officer of F.I.R No.62 dated 30.8.2009 of Rairangpur Town Police
Station shall also remain present on the spot on the date fixed
Thereafter, an inventory list shall be prepared by the learned
Official Liquidator of the items and copies of the same shall be
served to the authorized representatives of the parties including the
I.O.
For the above purpose. M/s. Mishra Constructions Private
Limited shall open the lock of Lot No.4 in the presence of the
authorized representative including the I.O. and thereafter, the
articles of Lot No.5 shall be removed from the premises without
causing any damage to Lot No.4 within a period one month.
It is also directed that the arrears electricity dues before
handing over possession of Lot No.4 shall be paid by the Official
Liquidator and the electricity connection shall be provided by the
Electricity Department in the name of. Mas. Mishra Constructions
Private Limited."
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the
submission made and taking into account the nature of order passed
by this Court on 03.09.2009 in COPET No.9 of 2003, this Court is
of the view that Official Liquidator was required to pay the arrear
electricity dues as was payable by the previous consumer before
handing over the possession of the company in favour of the present
petitioner.
7.1. In view of the aforesaid order dated 03.09.2009, it is the view
of this Court that petitioner without issuance of any show-cause,
could not have been issued with the impugned demand notice dated
02.05.2011.
7.2. Be that as it may, this Court while disposing the Writ
Petition, permits the petitioner to make appropriate application
before Opp. Party No.2 with a prayer to waive the demand so raised
under Annexure-3, taking into account the nature of order passed on
// 4 //
03.09.2009 in COPET No.9 of 2003 and the decisions in the case of
Anshuman Behera and Ajay Kumar Agrawal so cited (supra).
7.3. It is observed that if any such application will be moved by
the petitioner with a prayer to recall the demand issued under
Annexure-3 along with order dated 03.09.2009 so passed in COPET
No.9 of 2003 and the decisions in the case of Anshuman Behera
and Ajay Kumar Agrawal so cited (supra), Opp. Party No.2 shall
take a lawful decision on the same by giving opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of
receipt of such application.
Till a decision is taken as directed, no coercive action be
taken against the petitioner in terms of the impugned demand notice
dated 02.05.2011.
8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
