IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 6649 of 2014 SDO, No.1 Electrical, Sub- Division, TPNODL, Keonjhar …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate -versus- Appellate Authority-cum- Dy., Electrical Inspector (T&D), Govt. of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA Mr. L. Bhuyan, Adv. for O.P. 2 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 23.06.2026 12. 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 challenging the order passed by the appellate authority- cum-Dy. Electrical Inspector (T&D), Jajpur Road in A.C.C. No.11 of 2013/2014. Vide the impugned order dtd.11.11.2013, the appellate authority-Opposite Party No.1 while allowing the appeal so filed by the present Opposite Party No.2 issued the following directions:- “ORDER In the light of the above observations and from the entire sequence it appears to me that the assessment is pre- motivated to frame the Appellant and all actions have taken with malafied intention and hence it is ordered that 1. The final assessment of the Assessing Officer is quashed. 2. The Respondent is directed to revise bills for the period from June 2012 to till installation of the meter on the basis of average meter reading for the consecutive three billing periods on the new installed meter. No penal action can be taken on such period. 3. Amount already paid by the Appellant will be adjusted in such revised bills & subsequent bills. 4. Re-verification of the consumer’s load is to be made with due notice to the Appellant The Respondent is further directed to file compliance within 60 days from the date of issue of this order, otherwise the Appellant will be at liberty to appeal before OERC under Section 142 of the Electricity Act 2003.” 4. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that since basing on the inspection report prepared and available under Annexure-2, the assessment was made and in the final assessment order so issued under Annexure-5, Opposite Party No.2 was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,38,300/-, the same could not have been interfered with by the appellate authority while allowing the appeal vide the impugned order dtd.11.11.2013 under Annexure-9. 4.1. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Regulation- 51 and 52 of the OERC (Condition & Distribution of Supply Code), 2004, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the inspection was done in terms of the provisions contained under Regulation-51 and 52 of the Regulation, while disbelieving the same, the appellate authority could not have interfered with the final assessment order so issued under Annexure-5. Regulation-51 and 52 of the Regulation reads as follows:- “Access to Consumer's Premises 51. For carrying out general inspection, repair and testing, the Engineer or the staff authorised by him shall be entitled to enter the premises of a consumer after informing the consumer or occupier. In case of unauthorised addition and alteration of equipment, theft and misappropriation of energy. diversion of power bypassing of meter for consumption of electricity, the Engineer or his staff can disconnect the power of the premises in pursuance of a special order in this behalf made by an Executive Magistrate in accordance with the Section-163 of the Act. Preparation of Inventory of Licensee's Installation or Inspection Report 52. During the checking and verification of the electrical installation in the premises of the consumer, including the supply line and meter, a complete inventory shall be prepared of all connected equipment, apparatus, machinery, forming integral part of the installation in the premises of the consumer. The consumer or his representative shall be requested to sign the inventory or inspection report. If the consumer or his representative refuses to sign the inventory or the inspection report an endorsement to that effect shall be made by the engineer on the body of the report. A copy of the said report shall be affixed at the consumer's premises. In such cases, the consumer shall be deemed to have been served with a copy of the report. Within one month of service of the report as aforesaid, the consumer shall be entitled to complain against the correctness of the inventory or the result of the inspection to the designated authority of the licensee, who shall enquire into the matter of the complaint and decide on the correctness or otherwise of the report.” 4.2. It is further contended that since the inspection was made in presence of the wife of Opposite Party No.2 and the wife of the consumer/ Opposite Party No.2 put the signature of the consumer in the inspection report so available under Annexure-2, by holding that signature of the consumer does not tally with his original signature, the final assessment order could not have been interfered with. 4.3. It is further contended that since it is not disputed that the inspection was done in presence of the wife of the consumer and the wife put the signature of her husband, the same could not have been disbelieved by the appellate authority, while interfering with the final assessment order. 4.4. Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order needs interference of this Court. 5. Mr. L. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 on the other hand contended that the inspection was done neither in presence of the consumer/ O.P. No.2 nor in presence of his wife. 5.1. It is also contended that wife of Opposite Party No.2 never put the signature of the consumer in the inspection report so prepared by the Petitioner and available under Annexure-2. 5.2. It is contended that since neither the consumer nor his wife were present on the date of inspection and the signature available under Annexure-2 is not the signature of the consumer / Opposite Party No.2, the appellate authority rightly came to a conclusion that the inspection report has been prepared contrary to the provisions contained under Regulation-51 and 52 of the Regulation. 5.3. It is also contended that signature of the consumer is very much available before this Court in the caveat petition so filed by him and such signature of O.P. No.2 does not tally with the signature available in Annexure-2. 5.4. It is contended that signature available under Annexure-2 is not the signature of the consumer and accordingly no illegality or irregularity can be found with the order of the appellate authority. 5.5. Making all these submissions, it is contended that the appellate authority has rightly interfered with the impugned final assessment, with passing of the order under Annexure-9. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the dispute arose with preparation of the inspection report dtd.19.06.2013 under Annexure-2. This Court after going through Annexure-2 finds that after the inspection, the Inspecting Authority took the signature of the consumer in the prescribed format and basing on the said inspection report the assessment was made with passing of the final assessment order under Annexure-5 dtd.03.07.2013. In the final assessment order, the consumer / Opposite Party No.2 was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,38,300/-. Challenging the demand so passed in the final assessment order under Annexure-5-Opposite Party No.2 moved the appellate authority by filing in A.C.C. No.11 of 2013/2014. 6.1. This Court finds that the appellate authority on the ground that the inspection has not been done in accordance with Regulation-51 and 52 of the Regulation and with another finding that signature of the consumer so reflected in Annexure-2 does not tally with the signature of the consumer, interfered with the final assessment order and allowed the appeal vide the impugned order dtd.11.11.2013 under Annexure-9. 6.2. This Court after going through provisions contained under Regulation-51 and 52 of the Regulation finds that such an inspection can be made either in presence of the consumer or in presence of his/her authorized representative. Taking into account the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the inspection was done in presence of the wife of the consumer but since signature of the wife of the consumer was never taken in Annexure-2, and signature of the consumer so taken in Anneuxre-2 is not the original signature of the consumer, as is evident from the caveat petition available in the record, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order so passed on 11.11.2013 under Annexure-9. 7. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same and dismiss the Writ Petition. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat