Back
2024 Supreme(Pat) 1038
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Ajit Kumar, S/o. Late Bhagwan Dayal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1785 of 2016
Decided On : 04-10-2024
For the Petitioner:Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Yogendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Ratneshwar Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Atul Dayal, Advocate, Mr. Alexender Ashok, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7, Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.
The District Magistrate lacks the authority to review its own orders in the absence of statutory provisions, rendering such review orders illegal.
Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 164 - Review of orders - The District Magistrate's order directing the petitioner to deposit additional charges for shifting an electricity line was quashed as the District Magistrate lacked the power to review its own order without statutory provision. (Paras 5, 11, 12)
(B) Legal Principles - The court reaffirmed that review applications are not maintainable in the absence of statutory provisions, and any review order without jurisdiction is null and void. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to shift an obstructive 11KAV electricity line from his property, initially ordered to pay Rs. 15,603.00, but later faced an additional demand of Rs. 2,39,864.00 in a review order.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the District Magistrate had no authority to review its own order, leading to the quashing of the review order.
Issues: The main issues were whether the District Magistrate had the power to review its own order and the legality of the additional charges imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of statutory provision for review rendered the review order illegal and without jurisdiction.
Result: Writ petition allowed, setting aside the review orders.
JUDGMENT :
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.)
1. The Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna in Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 2012-13.
2. The brief facts culled out of the writ petition are that the petitioner was constrained to file C.W.J.C. No. 17872 of 2012 which was disposed of by this Court on 25.09.2012 directing the District Magistrate, Patna to pass appropriate orders in light of the provisions contained under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Works of Licensee Rules, 2006 for shifting 11KAV line from the plot of the petitioner and further directed the District Magistrate to pass appropriate orders, basing on the representations filed by the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of the representation.
3. Initially, the petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 17872 of 2012 seeking for a direction to the authorities of the State and Electricity Board to consider the request of the petitioner for shifting of 11KVA line from Plot No. 30, Khata No. 200 measuring an area of 1 Katha in the village of Balipakar, P.S. Paliganj, District Patna as the said line was obstructing the development of the plot and was also causing enormous financial loss to the petitioner.
4. This Court on considering the merits of the case has disposed of C.W.J.C. No. 17872 of 2012 on 25.09.2012. Later, the petitioner filed his representation dated 08.10.2012 before the District Magistrate, Patna as well as before the Executive Electrical Engineer, Bihta, Patna and after receiving the representation, the District Magistrate, Patna initiated Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 2012-13 but as the District Magistrate, Patna has not passed any order for more than one and half year and the petitioner was constrained to file a contempt case before this Hon’ble High Court dated 24.06.2014 as M.J.C. Case No. 2264 of 2014. On 04.09.2014 a show cause was filed by the Opposite Party, Executive Electrical Engineer, Bihta, Patna stating that for shifting 11KAV line, the petitioner should deposit an amount of Rs. 15,603.00/-in the account of the company. Accordingly, on 27.09.2014 the District Magistrate, Patna passed orders in Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 2012-13 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 15,603.00/-for shifting 11KAV line and directed the Electricity Department to remove the line from the aforesaid land within two months. On 18.10.2014 the Executive Electrical Engineer, Bihta, filed a Review Petition before the District Magistrate to review the order passed on 27.09.2014. On 01.11.2014 the petitioner filed a rejoinder against the Review Petition contending that the District Magistrate has no power to review its own order. On 25.11.2014 the District Magistrate, Patna again passed an order on the Review Petition in Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 2012-13 directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,603.00/-as supervision charges, on that the line could be transferred to another place after depositing an amount of Rs. 2,39,864.00/- or at the petitioner own expenditure.
5. It is specific contention of the Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the District Magistrate has no power to review its own order and the initial order of the District Magistrate, only directs the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,603.00/-but the final order i.e. the review order disclose that apart from Rs. 15,603.00/-the petitioner also has to deposit Rs. 2,39,864.00/-which is bad in the eye of law. The orders passed by the District Magistrate, Patna caused great injury and the petitioner has to bear heavy expenditure for shifting the line to another place and therefore, prayed to set aside the review orders passed by the District Magistrate, Patna dated 25.11.2014 in Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 2012-13.
6. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the Respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6 denying all the allegations made in the Writ Petition. It is specifically cont
