Dikhyaa Mohanty 
The Orissa High Court on Tuesday issued notices to Tata Power, the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC), and the Energy Secretary of the Odisha government in response to a petition challenging the levy of an Additional Security Deposit (ASD) on electricity consumers. The court directed all parties to file their replies within two weeks and scheduled the matter for hearing in three weeks.
The petition, filed by consumer groups and individual citizens, contends that Tata Power’s demand for ASD is arbitrary, financially burdensome, and violative of consumer rights. The petitioners argued that the move disproportionately impacts households and small businesses already grappling with rising living costs. Tata Power manages electricity distribution in Odisha through four entities—TPCODL, TPSODL, TPNODL, and TPWODL. In December, TPCODL announced the imposition of the ASD.
Taking cognisance of the matter, the High Court sought detailed explanations from Tata Power and asked the OERC and the Energy Secretary to clarify their role in approving and implementing the policy. The court underscored that safeguarding consumer rights is a core responsibility of both the regulator and the government, and that any policy affecting lakhs of consumers must be transparently justified.
The ASD issue has sparked widespread protests across the state in recent weeks. Farmers’ organisations, trade unions, and consumer rights groups have staged demonstrations in Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, and several district headquarters, demanding the immediate withdrawal of the additional deposit. Protesters alleged that the levy amounts to double billing and imposes an unfair financial burden on ordinary citizens. In some districts, residents blocked roads and held sit-ins outside electricity offices, accusing the company of exploiting consumers. Opposition political parties also joined the protests, criticising the BJP-led government for failing to safeguard public interest and calling for stronger regulatory oversight. The growing public anger, which intensified ahead of the High Court’s intervention, compelled authorities to take note of the issue.
