IMPORTANT POINT
Since a person is not a consumer as per Section 2(15) of Act, 2003, he is not entitled to any notice under Regulation 100 of Code, 2004 before disconnection of electricity supply from residential house of consumer.

B.N. Mahapatra, J.—In this petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the Opp. Party in disconnecting the electricity supply from his residential house where he is living as tenant on the ground that the said action of the Opp. party is arbitrary, illegal and shrouded with mala fide intention and also prays for restoration of power supply to his house and to pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as this Court deems just and proper.

2. The petitioner’s case in short is that he is a tenant and legal representative of one late Chakradhar Panda who is a consumer of CESU bearing Consumer A/c No.00265786. The opposite party-Central Electricity Supply & Utility (in short “CESU”) with mala fide intention disconnected power supply from the residential house where the petitioner resides as a tenant. After death of said Chakradhar Panda, the real owner of the house, the petitioner and his family members took over possession of the said house and they have been taking care of that house. The relationship of the petitioner with late Chakradhar Panda is nephew and maternal uncle. The petitioner has been paying electricity charges to CESU regularly and has become a bona fide consumer of electricity. The CESU threatened the petitioner to impose more electricity charges by enhancing the load from 2 KW to 3KW. Due to such threat, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.7474 of 2010 and this Court vide order dated 23.4.2010 issued notice to CESU and granted interim order not to disconnect electricity supply from the house of the petitioner without leave of this Court. The said writ petition was finally disposed of on 19.5.2010 with the observation that it is open for the petitioner to approach the Grievance Redressal Forum within a period of two weeks from the date of order and if the petitioner files an application before the Grievance Redressal Forum, Cuttack, the same should be considered on its own merit without being influenced by the said order of this Court. It was further observed that the apprehension of the petitioner that the authorities proposed to take coercive action against the petitioner is unfounded. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the petitioner filed a petition before the Grievance Redressal Forum, Cuttack and the latter vide its order dated 24.7.2010 dismissed the complaint on contest giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Ombudsman-1 within 30 days from the date of its order. Thereafter, power supply has been disconnected from the house of the petitioner as a result of which the entire family of the petitioner is in darkness and facing difficulties. Against such illegal action of CESU, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. Mr. K.K. Rath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the writ petition submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner in terms of Regulation 100 of the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 (for short Code, 2004) before disconnecting power supply to the house in which the petitioner is residing with his family. It is further submitted that the term ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(15) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short Act 2003) is not only a real owner of a premises but also an occupier who is the tenant of the premises and using electricity under the said Act. The petitioner is a bona fide consumer and disconnection of power supply by CESU is illegal, which should be restored on humanitarian point of view. The petitioner, it is stated, though has applied .for fresh electricity connection in his name, no action on the same has been taken by the CESU as yet.

4. Mr. Chitta Ranjan Swain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CESU vehemently contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition and the same should be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The petitione