Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 3246 of 2016 M/s. Ambica Iron & Steel Pvt Ltd., Rourkela ..... Petitioner Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate -versus- Appellate Authority-cum-SE Cum Electrical Inspector, Rourkela & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 09.03.2026 Order No. 05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that against the final assessment order, Petitioner though preferred an appeal before the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 1, but the same was rejected on the ground of delay vide the impugned order dtd.18.12.2015 under Annexure-3. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that final assessment order so passed on 30.10.2015 was served on the Petitioner on 04.11.2015 and the appeal was filed before Opp. Party No. 1 on 02.12.2015. Since the final assessment order was received on 04.11.2015 and the appeal was filed on 02.12.2015, there was no delay in filing the appeal as per the provisions contained under Sec. Page 2 of 2. 127 of the Indian Electricity Act. However, the appeal so filed was not entertained on the ground of delay. 5. Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 on the other hand contended that in the meantime Petitioner has already paid the dues so assessed in the final assessment order. It is also contended that period of limitation of 30 days to file the appeal has to be counted from the date of passing of the final order i.e.31.10.2015 in terms of the provisions contained under Sec. 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Since the final assessment order was passed on 31.10.2015 under Annexure-2 series and the appeal was filed on 02.12.2015, which is admittedly beyond the period of 30 days, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing the writ petition, permits the Petitioner to make an interim application by explaining the delay in filing the appeal before Opp. Party No. 1. 6.1. It is observed that if any such application will be moved within a period of two (2) weeks hence, the appellate authority shall condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law. Any payment made by the Petitioner shall be subject to final outcome of the appeal to be decided. Consequentially, the impugned order passed on 18.12.2025 under Annexure-3 stands quashed. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha