Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 36991 of 2025 United Friends Builders (P) Ltd. ..... Petitioner Mr. S.K. Baral, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA Mr. L.K. Maharana, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 30.01.2026 Order No. 02 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Baral, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opp. Party and Mr. L.K. Maharana, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In the circumstances, it is prayed therefore your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit the application, issue notice to the Opp. Parties and after hearing the parties direction be issue to quash the illegal demand of Rs. 113,307.00 for faulty meter assessment bill for the period of 03.01 2022 to 22 12.2022 issued by the Opp. party No-2 on 22. 10. 2025 in connection with Consumer A/C No-80000462772 for the interest of justice and direct the Opp. party authorities to accept the monthly consummated bill from the petitioner regularly. Page 2 of 3. And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case; And for which act of kindness, the petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray;” 4. It is contended that for the defective meter so checked on 23.12.2022, demand to the tune of Rs.1,13,307/- was raised for the first time along with the bill dtd.22.10.2025 under Annexure-3. 4.1. It is contended that since after checking up the meter on 23.12.2022, the demand was never raised till it was issued under Annexure-3, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law being a stale claim. 5. Basing on the instruction learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 contended that after verification of the meter on 23.12.2022 when it was found that the meter is a defective one, the demand was raised for the period from 03.01.2022 to 22.12.2022 and such demand was reflected in the subsequent bills all through. But Petitioner because of his earlier demand, never challenged the fresh demand and in the meantime his earlier demand was also settled through OTS on 24th March, 2023 vide Annexure-1. 5.1. It is contended that after such settlement of the demand through OTS, Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the demand with regard to the defective meter so checked on 23.12.2022. It is also contended that in terms of the provisions contained under Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019, more particularly under Regulation 157, Petitioner has to file his objection to such demand before Opp. Party No. 3 and if his grievance is not Page 3 of 3. considered, he can either approach the GRF or the Ombudsman as provided under the relevant regulation. Since Petitioner without availing the remedy available under Regulation 157 of the Regulation has filed the present writ petition, the same is not entertainable. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that he is very much ready and willing to file the objection to the demand before Opp. Party No. 3 within a period of two (2) weeks hence. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing the writ petition, observe that if any such objection to the demand for the period from 03.01.2022 to 22.12.2022 will be made within a period of 2 (two) weeks hence, Opp. Party No. 3 shall take a lawful decision on the demand by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Till a decision is taken as directed, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner with regard to the said demand. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha