Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 1033
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.
HOSENARA BEGUM - Appellant
Vs.
WBSEDCL - Respondent
W.P. 6903(W) of 2015
Decided On : 08-04-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Indradeep Pal and Mr. M.F. Rahaman, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Raj Kumar Basu, Advocate
The principles of natural justice are fundamental to the administration of justice and must be strictly adhered to by quasi-judicial authorities.
Headnote:
NATURAL JUSTICE - ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 - SECTIONS 56(2), 126, 166 - ELECTRICITY RULES, 1956 - RULES 64, 65 - WEST BENGAL ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE VIOLATED - ORDER PASSED BY ASSISTANT ENGINEER-CUM-STATION MANAGER SET ASIDE - FRESH CONSIDERATION DIRECTED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's husband died due to electrocution from a snapped live electrical wire of 440 volts while entering the paddy field. Petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Assistant Engineer-cum-Station Manager rejecting their application for compensation on the ground of unauthorized use of electricity by a disconnected consumer.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the principles of natural justice were violated by the Assistant Engineer-cum-Station Manager who represented the licensee company at the hearing and also passed the impugned order. The Court also found that the enquiry report, which was not supplied to the petitioners, was not placed before the learned Single Judge who had passed the earlier order directing the Assistant Engineer-cum-Station Manager to dispose of the petitioners' application.
Issues: Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the Assistant Engineer-cum-Station Manager who represented the licensee company at the hearing and also passed the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the principles of natural justice were violated on two counts: (i) the Assistant Engineer-cum-Station Manager represented the licensee company at the hearing before himself and made submissions on behalf of the licensee company, thereby deciding not only to be a judge in his own cause but also the supreme judge in all matters dealing with the application for compensation by the petitioners; and (ii) the enquiry report, which was not supplied to the petitioners, was not placed before the learned Single Judge who had passed the earlier order directing the Assistant Engineer-cum-Station Manager to dispose of the petitioners' application.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the licensee company to reconsider the application of the petitioners afresh by an authority superior to the Zonal Manager, Burdwan, after giving the petitioners or their authorized representative, an opportunity of being heard and to dispose of the application within a period of 10 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.
It gives me and perhaps all conscientious persons pain unspeakable to pass an order in a case where the licensee has so flagrantly and with impunity violated the basic principles of natural justice. A statutory body violating the same and justifying the act by filing an affidavit-in-opposition is a matter of serious concern for the present system where citizens have a right to repose their ultimate trust in the system itself.
2. The husband of the petitioner No. 1 was an agriculturist and he met with an accidental death on November 4, 2013. When he entered into the paddy field of his father in the district of Burdwan he accidentally stepped into a live electrical wire of 440 volts which was snapped from the overhead installation. The petitioners intimated the same to the authorities. It appears from the record that a spot enquiry was made, an FIR on behalf of the licensee was lodged and the petitioners were directed to file certain documents. They submitted those documents as early as on January 21, 2014. Since they did not hear anything from the respondents on the fate of their application for compensation, they moved a writ petition before this Court being W.P. 6488(W) of 2014.
3. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated January 20, 2015 directing the respondent No. 2 to that writ petition, i.e. the Assistant Engineer and Station Manager, Bhatar Customer Care Centre, to take a decision on the documents as sought for by the letter dated November 27, 2013 and to dispose of the petitioners' application by passing a reasoned order. That direction was complied with by the respondent No. 2, who figures the same respondent's number in this writ petition as well, by an order dated February 7, 2015 by rejecting the petitioners' case for grant of solatium/compensation upon a finding that the deceased husband of the petitioner No. 1 had met with an accident due to unauthorized use of electricity by the disconnected consumer of a submersible pump. The said order is practically under challenge in the present writ petition.
4. I appreciate that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition could have been better drafted. But going by the pleadings in the writ petition, it is obvious what the petitioners were actually challenging and it will be too technical, if not a little harsh and equitably erroneous, to dismiss the writ petition without moulding the reliefs which has been recognized by series of judgments. Moreover, the challenge of the petitioners is so obvious that if the reliefs are moulded the respondent shall not be prejudiced. This is a case where both the parties have come alive to the issues they have to meet.
5. The petitioners have challenged the findings on various grounds. Even they went to the extent of computing by the multiplier theory to establish that the petitioners are really entitled to much more compensation on account of death of the husband of the petitioner No. 1 as a result of the negligence on the part of the licensee company.
6. This writ petition has been seriously contested by the licensee by filing an affidavit-in-opposition.
7. Mr. Pal, the learned advocate for the petitioners, did not pray for time to file an affidavit-in-reply. However, it appears that a certain document has been annexed to the writ petition which is in the nature of an enquiry report. Mr. Pal alleged that copy of the enquiry report had not been given to the petitioners. This has also been admitted by Mr. Basu, the learned advocate for the licensee company.
8. I for one am not required to go into the merits of the case at this stage. The order passed by the respondent No. 2 is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. It appears that the respondents had violated the principles of natural justice on two counts.
9. The respondent No. 2 who had passed the order impugned represented the licensee company at the hea
