SURENDRA KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A good number of writ petitions, having been filed against different electricity distribution companies, this Court called upon learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in those writ petitions to address this Court with regard to their maintainability. In response, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the above noted three writ petitions participated in the process of hearing and addressed the Court on the question of maintainability of the writ petitions. Therefore, these three writ petitions are taken up for consideration with regard to their maintainability before this Court against the distribution companies, irrespective of the factual matrix mentioned in each of the writ petitions.

(2.) Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. S.B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 30107 of 2021 contended that as the opposite party-Tata Power Northern Odisha Distribution Limited (TPNODL) performs activity of supply of electricity, which is a duty of public nature, therefore, it is a 'State' and, as such, the writ is maintainable as against TPNODL. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in M/s. Zee Tele Films Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, (2005) 4 SCC 649 : AIR 2005 SCC 2677; North Eastern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd v. State of Orissa and others, 2010 (supp.-1) OLR-919; and NESCO Power Engineers Association v. Managing Director, NESCO, WESCO and Director, SOUTHCO and others (W.P.(C) No. 9745 of 2010 disposed of on 18/4/2011).

(3.) Mr. Binaya Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 31137 of 2021 supported the argument advanced by Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 30107 of 2021. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) and another v. Chita Ranjan Patnaik and others, 126 (2018) CLT633.