JUDGMENT :

DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.

M/s Satguru Metals & Power Private Limited-opposite party no.2 is a power intensive industry having consumer No.358 (PII) RRKL/3-0191 with contract demand of 5700 KVA under the petitioner-Western Electricity Supply Company of Orissa (for short ‘WESCO’), operating at Rajgangpur in the district of Sundergarh. For availing such power supply, opposite party no.2 entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 05.06.2009. A surprise check was conducted by the officers of the petitioner in the night of 11.12.2010 and it was detected that opposite party no.2, by illegal and unauthorized means, abstracting power supply from 33 KV line of the distribution system as per explanation appended to sub-section (6) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Consequentially, a final assessment was done demanding Rs.2,13,02,241/-pursuant to the order dated 29.12.2010. Due to non-payment of such amount, power supply was disconnected to the premises of opposite party no.2 for such unauthorized use of power as per Regulation-43 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “Code, 2004”).

2. Challenging such final assessment order dated 29.12.2010 and disconnection notice issued by the petitioner, opposite party no.2 filed W.P.(C) Nos.176 and 763 of 2011 before this Court. Pursuant to the interim order of this Court, opposite party no.2 deposited a sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs for stay of disconnection notice. Finally, this Court did not interfere and disposed of those writ petitions vide order dated 11.09.2012 holding as not maintainable and permitted opposite party no.2 to prefer appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of the order against the final assessment order under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. Instead of preferring appeal before the statutory appellate authority within the time stipulated, opposite party no.2 challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.09.2012 by filing W.A. No. 425 of 2012 before the Division Bench, which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2012 stating inter alia that there was an efficacious alternative remedy available to the consumer for redressal of its grievance by filing an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Consequentially, opposite party no.2 filed appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and, after due adjudication, the appellate authority passed an order on 06.06.2015 holding that opposite party no.2 was involved in unauthorized use of electricity only for two months, thereby reduced the final assessment amount from Rs.2,13,02,241/-to Rs.31,01,130/-. Being aggrieved by the said order of the appellate authority dated 06.06.2015, this application has been filed.

4. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. P.K. Pasayat, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appellate authority had not taken into consideration the question of limitation, as there was inordinate delay in preferring appeal, and the appeal should have been rejected on the ground of limitation, as it was not preferred along with the application for condonation of delay. Apart from the same, it is further contended that the period of assessment was not properly appreciated by the appellate authority and more so Transmission and Distribution (T & D) losses on the basis of dump report was not appropriated on correct basis for ascertaining the exact period of unauthorized use of electricity in a specific case of theft of electricity by means of tapping. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Smt. Geeta Mishra v. State of Orissa, 2009 (Supp.-II) OLR 374, Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orisa Limited (SOUTHCO) v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108 and Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, AIR 2010 SC 2061.

A date chart along with written note of argument was fil