Timely deposit of 50% of the assessed amount is a mandatory requirement under the Electricity Act for maintaining the validity of an appeal. Late deposits do not cure initial procedural defects.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. Heard Mr. F.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.K. Maharana, learned counsel appearing for TPNODL-Opp. Party No.3.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 03.12.2025, so passed by the Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-10 in Appeal Case No.01/2023-24.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that against the final assessment order passed on 05.05.2022 under Annexure-3, petitioner preferred the appeal within the stipulated time period under Annexure-4, on dated 27.05.2022. Since as per the provisions contained under Section 127 (2) of the Act, petitioner could not make the required deposit to the extent of 50% of the demand so raised in the Final Assessment Order, vide letter dated 08.09.2024 under Annexure-5, petitioner was advised to enclose the required document showing the deposit as provided under Section 127 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3.1. It is contended that petitioner on receipt of Annexure-5 letter dated 08.05.2024, made the deposit on 13.05.2024 and provided the money receipt before the Appellate Authority. But on the ground that petitioner has not made the deposit within the stipulated time and the same has been made after one month, the appeal was held not entertainable, and accordingly the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal vide the impugned order.

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since during pendency of the appeal, basing on letter dated 08.05.2024 under Annexure-5 so issued by the Appellate Authority, petitioner made the deposit on 13.05.2024, the appeal could not have been rejected on the ground indicated in the impugned order under Annexure-10. It is accordingly contended that the appellate authority be directed to dispose of the appeal on merit with quashing of the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel appearing for TPNODL-Opp. Party No.3 on the other hand contended that as provided under Section 127 (2) of the Act, against a final assessment order, a consumer has to prefer the appeal within a period of 30 days along with a deposit to the extent of 50%. There is no such provisions for extension of the time to make such deposit and the appeal should accompany the proof of deposit to be made before the concerned authority.

4.1. It is accordingly contended that since the appeal was made without making the statutory deposit so provided under Section 127 (2) of the Act, even though vide letter dated 08.05.2024, petitioner was directed to provide the document showing such deposit and the deposit was made on 13.05.2024, but no such document showing the deposit of the required amount within the stipulated time was ever provided.

4.2. Since the statutory deposit which is not disputed, was only made on 13.05.2024, which is not within the stipulated time period as provided under Section 127 (2) of the Act, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. Section 127 (2) of the Act reads as follows:-

“(2) No appeal against an order of assessment under sub- section (1) shall be entertained unless an amount equal to half of the assessed amount is deposited in cash or by way of bank draft with the licensee and documentary evidence of such deposit has been enclosed along with the appeal.”

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that against the final assessment order passed, against the petitioner under Annexure-3 on 05.05.2022, petitioner preferred the appeal under Annexure-4 on 27.05.2022. However, it is not disputed that along with the appeal, petitioner never enclosed the receipt showing deposit of 50% of the demand amount in terms of the provision contained under Section 127 (2) of the