ASSESSING OFFICER-CUMEXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECT ), NESCO, BARIPADA Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY-CUMDY ELECTRICALINSPECTOR (T & D) BALASORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition bearing W.P.(C) No.6338 of 2012 has been filed by the licensee -Assessing Officer -cum -Executive Engineer (Elect.) with a prayer to quash the order dated 23.03.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority -cum -D.E.I. (T&D), Balasore in Case No.AAC 01/2012 (Annexure -9) directing for reconnection of power supply to the premises of the consumer -petitioner within 48 hours without any cost. Further prayer is for a clarification that 50% statutory deposit as required under Section 127 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for the purpose of maintaining the appeal neither confers any right on the consumer to demand for restoration of power supply nor does it empower the Appellate Authority to direct the licensee by an interim order for reconnection of power supply to the consumer's premises. In the writ petition, though prayer has been made to quash order dated 23.03.2012 passed in Case No.AAC 01 of 2012 under Annexure -9, no such order has been attached to the writ petition as Annexure -9. Annexure -8 is the last Annexure attached to the writ petition, which is a petition dated 26.03.2012. However, it is found that the order dated 23.03.2012 has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure -7. From the various arguments advanced by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner licensee has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 23.03.2012 passed in Case No.AAC 01 of 2012 under Annexure -7 and not Annexure -9.

(2.) WRIT petition bearing W.P.(C) No.6386 of 2012 has been filed by the consumer with a prayer to direct opposite party No.1 -Executive Engineer (Electrical), NESCO to restore power supply to the premises of the petitioner and to dispose of the appeal within a stipulated period.

(3.) SINCE both the writ petitions are interconnected, they are disposed of by this common judgment.