IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16022 of 2020 Sailendra Kumar Mahalik …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate -versus- Central Electricity Supply Utility (CESU) & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA Mr.S.C. Das, Adv. for TPCODL COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 29.07.2025 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioner therefore humbly prays that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application and issue a "Rule NISI" calling upon the Opp.Parties to show cause as to why:- i) the demand cum disconnection notice issued through text message to the mobile on 18.06.2020 shall not be declared as illegal arbitrary and without jurisdiction as the 184 of the OERC same is contrary to Regulation Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019 ? ii) The demand cum- disconnection notice raised through text message without following due procedure within the time stipulated u/s 126 of Act,2003 by making under annexure-1, final shall not be declare as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction ? and if the said O.P.s fail to show cause or show insufficient cause then after hearing the parties, your Lordship be pleased to allow the writ application by quashing the impugned demand-cum- disconnection notice of disconnection dated p. 2 p. 2 24.06.2020 as well as Inventory made by OP.4 Under Annexure-1 dated 23.10.2018, as the same being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Electricity Act, 2003 and Rules & Regulations of O.E.R.C Distribution Code, 2019.” 4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that highlighting his grievances, the Petitioner has made a representation to Opposite Party No.2 vide Annexure-4 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection. 5. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-4 within a period of three (3) months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat