Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 4386 of 2026 M. Ganesh ..... Petitioner Mr. S.N. Das, Advocate -versus- TATA Power Central Odisha Distribution Ltd., Bhubaneswar & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. L.K. Maharana, Advocate CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 16.03.2026 Order No. 01 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In the facts and circumstances narrated above, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show-cause as to why the impugned letter dated 14.08.2025 under Annexure-3, issued by the Opposite Party No.2 i.e., Executive Engineer (Electrical), Sub-Division No.1, Ranihat, Cuttack, shall not be quashed and set aside and if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said rule absolute, by quashing the said letter and declaring the action of the Opposite Parties in disconnecting the power supply permanently to the house possessed by the Petitioner over plot no. 257, Kesharpur, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack, as illegal and arbitrary; Page 2 of 3. And may further be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to grant electricity connection afresh by restoring the erstwhile customer no. 80032829964 forthwith, in the name of the Petitioner; And may pass any further order/(s) writ/(s) direction/(s), in the interest of justice; And for which Act of kindness, the above named Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that without providing due opportunity of hearing, power supply to the premises of the Petitioner was disconnected. 5. On instruction learned counsel appearing for the TPCODL contended that pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 20113 of 2025, power supply was disconnected to the premises of the Petitioner as he failed to provide any document showing that he is the recorded tenant of the suit land or he is occupier with due permission of the recorded tenant. 5.1. It is also contended that after such disconnection, the present Petitioner moved the GRF by filing Case No. 204 of 2025. Learned GRF has also passed the final order on the issue raised by the Petitioner on 13.10.2025. Instead of challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission and since challenging the disconnection, the present Petitioner had already approached the GRF and the GRF has passed an order on 13.10.2025, it is the view of this Court that Page 3 of 3. instead of challenging the said order before the appropriate forum, the present writ petition could not have been filed. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and dismiss the same. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha