Naorem Suresh Singh v. State of Manipur

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

19.04.2022 [1] Heard Mr. L. Shyam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. H. Debendra, learned GA appearing for the respondents. [2] The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.03.2018, issued by the Chief Secretary (Power), Government of Manipur, fixing the quantum of ex-gratia payment to the family of victims and owner of livestock in case of electrical accidents as per the decision of the State Cabinet taken in its meeting held on 04.01.2018, coupled with a prayer for directing the official respondents to constitute a State Regulatory Commission under Section 82 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and to issue notification under the official gazette for giving compensation to the victim of electrical accidents along with the expenditure of treatment, pain and suffering, mental disease trauma, towards attending and nursing, loss of earning in addition to the compensation for serious injury. [3] In challenging the impugned order, the only ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Chief Secretary, who issued the impugned order, has no power or authority to issue the said order inasmuch WP(C) No.

456 of 2020 as, prior to issuance of the said impugned order, the authorities did not obtain the approval of the State Regulatory Commission as mandated under Section 42 (5) & (6), Section 57, Section 67 (3) & (4), Section 82 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 17 and 21 of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998. [4] It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government is yet to constitute any State Regulatory Commission as provided under Section 82 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and that while issuing the impugned order, the authorities have not complied with the mandatory provisions under Section 42 (5) & (6), Section 57, Section 67 (3) & (4), Section 82 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the provisions under Section 17 and 21 of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 which provides for fixation and providing compensation to victims.

In view of the above, the learned counsel submitted that since the Chief Secretary has no power or authority to issue that order and since the authorities have not taken into consideration the mandatory provisions under the aforementioned sections while issuing the impugned order, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. [5] It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government has not constituted any State Regulatory Commission as provided under Section 82 of the Electricity Act and accordingly, the petitioner has already made representation to the authorities WP(C) No. 456 of 2020 for constituting such commission, however, the respondents have not considered or taken any action as prayed for by the petitioner in his representation. [6] The learned counsel accordingly prayed that the State authorities may be directed to constitute a State Regulatory Commission as provided under Section 82 and to issue notifications to be published in the official gazette for fixing the quantum of compensation to the victims of electrocution. [7] On perusal of the record of the present case, it has been clearly stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the impugned order order 07.03.2018 had been issued as per the State policy framed by the State Cabinet taken in its meeting held on 04.01.2018 for payment of ex- gratia to the families of victim and owner of livestock in case of electrical accidents and it has nothing to do with payment of compensation whatsoever. [8] It is the further the case of the respondents that the policy decision for payment of ex-gratia had been taken by the State Cabinet, which is the highest decision making body of the Government and that pursuant to the said decision taken by the State Cabinet, the Chief Secretary issued the impugned orders in the name of the Governor and there is no illegality or no question of incompetency arises and accordingly, there is no substance or merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. [9] It has also been stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the State Government has already constituted a joint Regulatory Commission under Section 83 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and as such, the WP(C) No.

456 of 2020 allegation made by the petitioner about non constitution of the Regulatory Commission is unfounded and liable to be rejected. [10] After hearing the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records and provisions of the Act referred to by both the counsel appearing for the parties, this Court found that the provisions under Section 42 (5) & (6), Section 57, Section 67 (3) & (4) and Section 82 of the Electricity Act and the provisions under Section 17 and 21 of the Electricity Regulatory Commission, 1998 have nothing to do with regard to payment of ex-gratia as contained in the impugned order dated 07.03.2018 and accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authorities while issuing the impugned order dated 07.03.2018 and no question of violating any of the mandatory provisions of the Electricity Act or the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act arises. [11] On careful examination of the provisions of Section 82 and 83 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is crystal clear that notwithstanding anything contrary contained in Section 82 of the Electricity Act, the State Government is empowered to constitute a joint commission under Section 83 of the said Act and in view of the categorical statement made by the respondents in their counter affidavits that the State Government has already constituted a joint Electricity Regulatory Commission, this Court is of the considered view that the State Government has already granted the prayer made by the petitioner WP(C) No.

456 of 2020 for directing the respondents to constitute a State Electricity Regulatory Commission and no further direction is required from this Court. [12] In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and for the reasons and discussions made above, this Court found no merit in the present writ petition and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any costs. Lhaineichong JUDGE WP(C) No. 456 of 2020