The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3650 of 2025 The Executive Engineer Electrical, Nuapada & others …. Petitioners Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate -Versus- Sarada Charan Panda …. Opposite Party None
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 22.04.2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2. 3. This matter is taken up through virtual mode. Heard Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners. No notice is issued to the opposite party, as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. 4. Instant writ petition is fled by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 29th November, 2024 under Annexure-6 passed in connection with Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 by learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Nuapada (hereinafter referred to as „the DCDRC‟) on the grounds stated therein. 5. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned DCDRC, Nuapada did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the order of the Apex Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd & others Vrs. Anis Ahmad AIR 2013 SC 2766 despite an objection from the side of the petitioner. It is further submitted that without any issue being framed on the point Page 1 of 4 of jurisdiction in view of the objection as above, learned DCDRC, Nuapada allowed the complaint with a direction to refund an amount of Rs.13,208/- which was deposited by the opposite party with an undertaking-cum-declaration i.e. Annexure-3 series. The contention is that in absence of any such jurisdiction of the learned DCDRC, Nuapada, the impugned order, i.e., Annexure-6 is liable to be set aside. In course of hearing, Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party may have the liberty to challenge the final assessment with an appeal filed under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. With such submission, a copy of the order dated 20th September, 2024 in W.P.(C) No.23035 of 2024 of this Court is filed. With regard to the jurisdiction point, the contention is that the same is clearly excluded in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Anis Ahmad (supra). 6. In fact, an objection was filed by the petitioner before the learned DCDRC, Nuapada challenging the jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint. Upon a reading of the impugned order as at Annexure-6, the Court finds that notwithstanding such an objection, no issue was framed on the point of jurisdiction. The learned DCDRC, Nuapada framed issues with regard to deficiency in service and the relief, if the opposite party is entitled to receive and not on jurisdiction. The Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, after an elaborate discussion with reference to the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, observed that after notice of provisional assessment to the person indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, the final decision by an Assessing Officer is a quasi-judicial decision, hence, does not fall within the meaning of „consumer dispute‟ as defined in 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Page 2 of 4 7. It is apposite to make mention of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and the relevant extract of the decision in Anis Ahmad (supra) is, hence, reproduced herein below: “47. In view of the observation made above, we hold that:-(i)In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of the 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 the 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. (iii)The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 run parallel for giving redressal to the meaning of falls within any person, who “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State 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”. 8. In view of the law referred to herein above, considering the submission of Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and as there has been no decision on the point of jurisdiction as made to reveal from Annexure-6, when an objection was raised as per Page 3 of 4 Annexure-5, the Court is of the view that the impugned order i.e. Annexure-6 is liable to be set aside with a direction to the learned DCDRC, Nuapada to consider the same with a disposal. The Court is also of the view that the opposite party in view of final assessment would have the liberty to avail appropriate remedy as per Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, nevertheless, the direction is for a fresh decision on the point of jurisdiction by the learned DCDRC, Bargarh. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. 10. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the learned DCDRC, Nuapada to consider the question of jurisdiction in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Anis Ahmad (supra) and thereafter, to proceed and dispose of the complaint accordingly. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order under Annexure-6 in Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2019 is hereby set aside restoring the proceeding for a fresh disposal in the light of the directions as aforesaid. In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to costs. 10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 24-Apr-2025 12:04:28 Page 4 of 4