Sudha Pandey v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 22890 of 2022 Sudha Pandey .....

Petitioner Mr. Pabitra Kumar Nayak, Advocate -versusState of Odisha and others ....

Opp. Parties Mr. Suvashish Pattanaik, Additional Government Advocate (For Opposite Party No.1)

CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

15.09.2022 1.

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2.

Grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition with regard to the inaction of the authorities of TPWODL, Rourkela in sifting 33 KVA line from residential area of Satsnag Vihar, Sector-22, Rourkela in which the Petitioner is a resident. 3.

It is submitted by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner that on the request of local residents, authorities under the WESCO Utility had assured to shift the 33 KVA line from residential area of Satsnag Vihar, Sector-22, Rourkela during widening of the road of National Highway from Panposh to Rajmunda. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placing reliance upon a communication dated 30th July, 2018 (Annexure-1) of the Public Information Officer, WESCO Utility, RSED Rourkela submits that in spite of the same no action has yet been taken for shifting of the aforesaid 33 KVA line. It is his contention that although in the above regard, husband of the Petitioner has submitted a representation/ grievance petition dated 16th

// 2 // February, 2022 (Annexure-2) to the Chief Executive Officer, TPWODL, Burla, Sambalpur-Opposite Party No.2, but no action has yet been taken pursuant to such grievance petition. Hence, interest of justice will be best served if a direction is made for early disposal of the representation/grievance petition under Annexure-2.

4.

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case of the Petitioner, disposes of the writ petition with a direction that Opposite Party No.2-CEO, TPWODL to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by husband of the Petitioner under Annexure-2 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order and communicate the decision thereof to the Petitioner's husband, provided the representation is still pending consideration.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge s.s.satapathy