EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECT.) KEED, TPWODL, KALAHANDI vs PRADIPTA DASH — WP(C)/10518/2026

Case under Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: ODHC010224492026

Filing Number

WP(C)/13250/2026

Filing Date

25-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/10518/2026

Registration Date

07-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Coram

Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL MATTER ( 28 )

Sub-Category

SETTLEMENT OF RIGHTS ( 20 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECT.) KEED, TPWODL, KALAHANDI

    Adv. PRASANTA KUMAR TRIPATHY, S.PATTANAYAK

  2. 2.S.D.O-I (ELECT) KEED, TPWODL, BHAWANIPATNA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRADIPTA DASH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar MohapatraView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Orissa directed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Kalahandi to first decide the maintainability of a consumer complaint against an electricity assessment order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, applying the Supreme Court's holding in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd v. Anis Ahmad that such complaints are not maintainable before consumer forums. The court disposed of the writ petition with a directive that the DCDRC decide the maintainability issue within two months while considering the Supreme Court precedent, and only proceed on merits if it finds jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/10518/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Orissa directed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Kalahandi to first decide the maintainability of a consumer complaint against an electricity assessment order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, applying the Supreme Court's holding in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd v. Anis Ahmad that such complaints are not maintainable before consumer forums. The court disposed of the writ petition with a directive that the DCDRC decide the maintainability issue within two months while considering the Supreme Court precedent, and only proceed on merits if it finds jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case