The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21727 of 2012 The S.D.O (Electrical), Supply Sub-Division, Bijipur B.E.D-I, SOUTHCO, Berhampur …. Petitioner Mr. Anindya Kumar Mishra, Adv. -versus- Rama Nath Rout …. Opposite Parties Mr. Lalatendu Samantaray, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 26.02.2024 06. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has
Legal Reasoning
challenged the order dated 31.03.2012 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam in PLA Case No.59/11. 4. The factual scenario of the case in brevity remains: (i) The Opposite Party is a domestic electric consumer, whose premises was inspected by the technical experts of the SOUTHCO and on inspection of the electric meter installed in the said premises on 15.03.2011, it was found that the said meter was tampered. Such inspection was conducted in presence of the consumer, who refused to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Mar-2024 13:54:25 sign on the inspection report. (ii) Accordingly, the Petitioner took action against the Opposite Party in terms of the provision under Section Page 1 of 6 // 2 // 126(1) of the Electricity Act and accordingly, on 15.03.2011 a provisional assessment order to the tune of Rs.59,569/- was issued to the Opposite Party due to unauthorized use of electricity for the period from March, 2009 to February, 2011. (iii) The Opposite Party was also provided with opportunity to file objection, if any, against the provisional assessment under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the order. (iv) While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner served an intimation bearing No.254 dated 18.03.2011 to the Opposite Party regarding the liability of Rs.27,473/- towards final assessment of penalty due to unauthorized use of electricity for the period from April, 2010 to February, 2011. (v) Thereafter, the Opposite Party voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs.13,000/- and made a representation before the authority to accept the same. But, in the said representation the Opposite Party nowhere protested the inspection conducted by the authority rather he paid 50% of the final assessment amount. (vi) Since the Opposite Party did not deposit the balance Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Mar-2024 13:54:25 amount of Rs.14,689.37 paise, a notice of disconnection under Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Regulation 100 of the OERC Distribution (condition of Page 2 of 6 // 3 // Supply Code, 2004) was issued to the Opposite Party with a direction to clear the said dues within fifteen days. It was also made clear therein that if the Opposite Party fails to deposit the said amount within the time stipulated in the notice, the electric connection of the Opposite Party would be disconnected without further notice. (vii) Thereafter, being aggrieved by the said notice, the Opposite Party/consumer approached the learned Permanent Lok Adalat through an application under Section 22C(1) of the LSA Act vide PLA Case No.2/2011. (viii) After hearing the parties concerned, learned Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 26.09.2011 remitted the matter to the Petitioner for proceeding with the final assessment order after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the Opposite Party in conformity with the procedure provided under Section 126 of the Chapter-XII. It was further directed therein not to disconnect the power supply to the house of the Opposite Party. (ix) It is pertinent to mention here that no time limit was prescribed in the order regarding disposal of the said proceeding. (x) Thereafter, as per the direction of the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, though the Petitioner on 26.12.2011 issued a notice to the Opposite Party for filing Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Mar-2024 13:54:25 Page 3 of 6 // 4 // his objection, the Opposite Party did not file any objection to the final assessment order. (xi) Thereafter, while awaiting objection of the Opposite Party for passing necessary order as per the above direction of the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, the Petitioner suddenly received subsequent notice issued in another PLA Case bearing No.59 of 2011 filed by the Opposite Party. (xii) On receiving the said notice the Petitioner appeared and filed written statement inter alia stating therein that the Opposite Party has no right to protest the final assessment order after making 50% payment of the final assessment amount. (xiii) Thereafter, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat without examining the entertainability of the dispute decided the same by the impugned order dated 31.03.2012. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and maintainability of the consumer complaint arising out of the proceeding involving unauthorized use of electricity under the Electricity Act, 2003. He further submits that the learned Consumer Forum and the learned Permanent Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Mar-2024 13:54:25 disputes. Lok Adalat are precluded from entertaining such type of Page 4 of 6 // 5 //
Legal Reasoning
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further brings to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs Anis Ahmad 1, wherein the apex Court has pushed two questions involving similar issue, which are: (a) whether complaints filed by the respondents before the Consumer Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were maintainable or not? (b) whether the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by a consumer or any person against the assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Answering the said questions, the apex Court has summarized as follows: (i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or “complaint”as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (ii) A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Mar-2024 13:54:25 1 AIR 2013 SCC 2766 Page 5 of 6 // 6 // (iii) The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the State the Central Government or Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider"; or “if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service”; or “hazardous service”; or “the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law”.” 7. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide such type of petitions. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the order dated 31.03.2012 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam in PLA Case No.59/11. It is also directed that if the Opposite Party so advised, he may approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.
Decision
8. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Ayaskanta Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Mar-2024 13:54:25 Page 6 of 6