Writ Appeal No. 2323 of 2024 · Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WRIT APPEAL No.2323 of 2024 In the matter of an Appeal under Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order; 1948 read with Clause-10 of the letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Rule-6 of Chapter-III of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948. Sri Sudarsan Das …. Appellant ---- -versus- 1. Junior Engineer (Electrical), TPNODL; 2. SDO (Electrical), TPNODL; and 3. Executive Engineer (Electrical), TPNODL …. Respondents Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant - Mr.Rudra Madhab Biswal Advocate For Respondents - Mr.Prasanta Kumar Tripathy Sambit Pattanayak (Advocates)
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO Date of Hearing & Judgment : 23.06.2025 Per Dixit Krishna Sripad,J. This Intra-Court Appeal seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 24.07.2024 entered W.A. No.2323 of 2024 Page 1 of 7 in respondents’ W.P.(C) No.15399 of 2024, whereby the relief granted to the respondent by the State Consumer Redressal Commission has been taken away, mainly on the ground that he does not answer the definition of “Consumer” given under section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 2. A brief fact matrix of the case is as under:- (a) There was a dispute as to unauthorized consumption of electric power resulting into the same landing at the hands of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Balasore. The said complaint of the appellant herein was negatived by the said Commission. The appellant carried the matter in appeal to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal, which reversed the order of District Commission; and (b) The respondents preferred the subject writ petition aggrieved by the order the State Commission and the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order reversed the order of State Commission and thereby restored the order of the District Commission to the substantive effect that the appellant should work out his remedy before the statutory authority as provided under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, ‘the 2003 Act’). Aggrieved thereby, the so-called consumer is before us. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-consumer seeks invalidation of impugned order of the learned Single Judge on the following grounds:- W.A. No.2323 of 2024 Page 2 of 7 i. The appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the subject writ petition and, therefore, there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, which are held to be a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; ii. The learned Single Judge felt it to appreciate that the appellant answers the definition of consumer given under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘the 2019 Act’) and thereby committed a gross error of law; iii. Learned Single Judge erred in granting interference inasmuch as an alternative remedy availing to appellant of the kind is no ground to deny relief to a genuinely aggrieved litigant in writ jurisdiction; and iv. The coercive proceedings taken up at the hands of the authorities under the provisions of 2003 Act are hopelessly time barred and, therefore, this aspect would not have been ignored by the learned Single Judge. 4. Per contra, learned panel counsel representing the respondents, opposes the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge contending that the question whether a person who unauthorizedly takes electric power is a consumer or not, is no longer res integra vide Apex Court’s decision in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited & others -V- Anis Ahmad; reported in AIR 2013 SC 2766. He further submits that the appellant has got W.A. No.2323 of 2024 Page 3 of 7 remedy to avail at the hands of the authorities constituted under the provisions of 2003 Act and, therefore, there is absolutely no scope for indulgence in this appeal. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers and also having adverted to the ruling cited at the Bar, we are inclined to grant indulge in the matter as under and for the following:- a). Firstly, to invoke the jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or State Commission, the invoker has to answer the definition of “Consumer”. It is the jurisdictional fact essential for exercising the jurisdiction. The allegation against the appellant is as to unauthorized tapping of electric power. It is purely a question of fact to be ascertained by the statutory authority under the provisions of 2003 Act and not the District/State Commission. The Apex Court, in the case of Anis Ahmad (Supra), has specifically answered the question as to unauthorized tapper of electric power being a consumer within the definition of 2019 Act, in the negative. Therefore, the order passed by the District Commission was perfect and the contra order passed by the State Commission was without jurisdiction. Therefore, learned Single Judge is more than justified in setting the same at naught; b). The vehement submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant as to the violation of principles of natural justice is W.A. No.2323 of 2024 Page 4 of 7 bit difficult to countenance. Even otherwise, such a contention can be taken up before the statutory authority as provided under 2003 Act. So also the contention that the subject coercive proceedings are time barred. Whether a proceeding is time barred or not is a mixed question of law and facts, which can better be adjudged by the statutory authority under the said Act; c). The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the alternate remedy does not bar redressal of grievance at the hands of Consumer Commissions under the 2019 Act qua the 2003 Act does not merit deeper examination inasmuch as on the facts pleaded in the complaint before the District Commission, the appellant does not answer the definition of consumer under section 2(7) of 2019 Act; d). A small grievance is made by the counsel for the appellant that the copies of the coercive proceedings have not been furnished to his client and without that, he cannot be driven to the statutory remedy under the provisions of 2003 Act. It is bit difficult to agree with the same inasmuch as the grievance which the appellant had aired before the District Commission or the State Commission under the provisions of 2019 Act can be urged before the statutory authority under the 2019 Act as well. Even otherwise we direct the respondent-authorities to furnish to the appellant herein a full set of papers concerning the subject coercive proceeding within two weeks by speed post and free of cost; and W.A. No.2323 of 2024 Page 5 of 7 e). It is hardly needs to be stated that when a statutory alternate and equally efficacious remedy does avail to a citizen, he cannot readily be permitted to invoke constitutional jurisdiction in the fitness of things, as rightly contended by learned panel counsel appearing for the respondents. The doctrine of alternate remedy is part of writ jurisprudence developed by the Courts precedent by President. Doctor D.D.Basu, in his commentary on Constitution of India, has enlisted a cart load of rulings, which do not warrant mentioning here to avoid lingering of this judgment. 6. All the above being said, the appellant, who has been fighting the legal battle, cannot be sent back empty handed when some alternative protection by way of provisional arrangement has to be made: since the appellant is being non-suited on the jurisdictional fact of he is being not a consumer under section 2(7) of the 2019 Act and that he being relegated to alternative remedy statutorily provided under 2003 Act, the coercive proceedings against him need to be kept at a bay to facilitate his formal challenge to the same as indicated above. In the above circumstances, this appeal fails with observations and directions hereinabove made. The appellant is granted a period four week time from today to avail the statutory remedy under the provision of 2003 Act. The coercive proceeding against the appellant taken up at the hands of W.A. No.2323 of 2024 Page 6 of 7 answering respondents, are kept under suspended animation for the said period. All contentions to the parties are kept open. Cost made easy. (D.K. Shripad) Judge (M.S.Sahoo) Judge Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 25-Jun-2025 14:41:47 W.A. No.2323 of 2024 Page 7 of 7