Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 2700 of 2014 Executive Engineer, Electrical, NESCO & Ors. ..... Petitioners Mr. S.C. Dash, Adv. -versus- Sarita Sharma & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties None CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 30.06.2026 Order No. 08 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.C. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. None appeared in spite of due appearance on behalf of Opp. Party No.1. None had also appeared on 19.05.2026 when the matter was adjourned to today. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 12.11.2012 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 in A.A.C. No.3 of 2012 under Annexure-8. Vide the said order final assessment order issued under Annexure-3 was quashed and Petitioner was directed to adjust the payment so made by the consumer-Opp. Party No.1 from his future billings. 4. While assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that after issuance of the provisional assessment order and notice dated 23.06.2011 under Annexure-2, Petitioner never filed any objection to such provisional assessment. Accordingly, the final assessment order was issued on Page 2 of 5. 16.09.2011 under Annexure-3, wherein Opp. Party No.1 was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,08,648.39/-. 4.1. It is contended that challenging such final assessment order so issued on 16.09.2011 under Annexure-3, Opp. Party No.1 approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.32049 of 2011. This Court vide order dated 15.12.2011 under Annexure-5 permitted Opp. Party No.1 to make an Appeal before the concerned GRF within 15 days ventilating her grievance. 4.2. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 15.12.2011, Petitioner when moved the GRF, learned GRF passed an order on 31.01.2012, wherein Opp. Party No.1 was permitted to move the Appellate Authority in terms of the provision contained under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 4.3. It is contended that even though Opp. Party No.1 was so permitted to move the Appellate Authority vide order dated 31.01.2012 of GRF Jajpur road and as provided under Section 127 of the Act, such an appeal was required to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of order, but such an appeal was filed only on 26.03.2012. 4.4. It is contended that on its appearance, Petitioner filed his reply under Annexure-7 inter alia taking a stand that the appeal is not maintainable as it has been filed beyond the period of limitation so provided to under Section 127 of the Act. 4.5. It is however contended that on the face of such specific stand taken by the Petitioner in their reply under Annexure-7 and even though no application seeking condonation of delay was filed by Opp. Party No.1 while preferring the appeal, the appellate authority Page 3 of 5. without proper appreciation of the provision contained under section 127 of the Act and so also the objection filed by the Petitioner under Annexure-7, passed the impugned judgment dated 12.11.2012 under Annexure-8, wherein the final assessment order was quashed and direction was issued to adjust the payment made by the Petitioner from future billings. 4.6. It is contended that since in terms of order passed by the learned GRF on 31.01.2012, the appeal was never preferred within the statutory period of 30 days so provided under Section 127 of the Act, on the face of the objection raised by the Petitioner under Annexure-7 and in absence of any such application being made by Opp. Party No.1 seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.2 could not have entertained the appeal with passing the impugned judgment under Annexure-8. It is further contended that this Court while issuing notice on the matter vide order dated 09.04.2014, stayed the operation of the impugned judgment. 5. In spite of appearance, nobody is there when the matter was called. Nobody had also appeared on 19.05.2026 and no appearance was also made before the learned Mediator, when the matter was referred to mediation. 5.1. Since neither any counter affidavit has been filed in spite of appearance of Opp. Party No.1 nor anybody is present when the matter was taken up, this Court in absence of any contrary document, is inclined to accept the contention made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Page 4 of 5. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, it is found that challenging the final assessment order so issued by the Petitioner, Petitioner approached this Court of filing W.P.(C) No.32049 of 2011. This Court vide order dated 15.12.2011 when permitted the Petitioner to move the Appellate Authority/GRF, Jajpur Road, the said authority was moved by Opp. Party No.1 by filing an application on 02.01.2012 and that too after 15 days of the time fixed by this Court in its order dated 15.12.2011. 6.1. It is also found that the learned GRF, Jajpur Road vide order dated 31.01.2012 though permitted Opp. Party No.1 to move the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.2 in terms of the provisions contained under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, but the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation on 26.03.2012 and that too without filing any application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 6.2. Even though a stand was taken by the Petitioners in their reply under Annexure-7 that the appeal is not entertainable, since has not been filed within period of limitation, but the Appellate Authority as found from impugned judgment, never discussed the issue so raised and allowed the same vide the impugned judgment dated 12.11.2012 under Annexure-8. 6.3. Since the appeal admittedly has been filed beyond period of limitation and there is no discussion as to whether Opp. Party No.1 filed such an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay and no discussion having been made with regard to the stand taken by the Petitioner in their reply under Annexure-7 that the appeal is barred by time, this Court is of the view that the Appellate Authority in absence of any application so filed by Opp. Party No.1 Page 5 of 5. seeking condonation of delay, could not have entertained the appeal with passing of the impugned judgment. 6.4. In view of the aforesaid illegalities and irregularities which is apparent on the face of the impugned order, this Court is inclined to quash Order/Judgment dated 12.11.2022, so passed by Opp. Party No.2 in A.A.C. Case No.3 of 2012 under Annexure-8. While quashing the impugned order, this Court allows the Writ Petition. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti