Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2018 DAILYLAW 937 (ORI)

JAY BHAGWAN AGARWAL v. WESTERN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY OF ORISSA LTD.

WP(C)/6504/2018 · 2026-03-16

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Writ Petition (Civil)body2018

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2018 Jay Bhagwan Agarwal …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mishra, Adv. -versus- Western Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate for O.P. Nos.1 to 5 Mr. P. Swain, Adv. for O.P. No.6 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 16.03.2026 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. On the oral prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to change the description of the Distribution Company as TPWODL in Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the circumstances, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued directing the Opposite Parties nos. 1 to 5 to take immediate steps for terminating the agreement and for refund of the security deposit with interest as per the condition of agreement and further as to why the Opposite Parties nos. 1 to 5 shall not be directed to pay compensation to the Petitioner for the mental agony and sufferings as well as the cost of this litigation; And if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said Rule absolute; And further be pleased to pass any other order(s) as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 5. However, taking into account the claim raised in the present Writ Petition, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to make a detailed representation before Opp. Party No.2 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of his claim, if any, within a period of three weeks hence. 6. It is observed that if such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, Opp. Party No.2 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. The order so passed by the Opp. Party No.2 be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid time period. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev