The court maintained that the Permanent Lok Adalat lacks adjudicatory power and cannot render interim relief for disputes exceeding jurisdictional limits, reaffirming the conciliatory nature of such forums.

JUDGMENT

Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J. The petitioner/Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited is aggrieved by order dated 20.07.2016 made by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat in case No. EPLA-II/180/2016, whereby, while remanding the case as "unsettled" (sic) and giving opportunity to the respondent/Rampal to seek redressal of his grievance before the appropriate court or forum, the Presiding Officer has directed that the supply of electricity by the petitioner to the respondent shall not be disconnected for non-payment of misuse charges and penalties without due process of law. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that in the impugned order the Presiding Officer has made certain adverse remarks against it and has directed that a copy of the order be circulated to various governmental authorities and senior officials. It is the petitioner's contention that the impugned order has been made by the Presiding Officer without jurisdiction and/or by exercising power and jurisdiction not vested in him by law.

2. It may be mentioned at the outset that the use of the words Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalat in this judgement are to be read subject to what is stated in the concluding paragraphs, for the reason that regardless of the nomenclature given to the forum in the course of the proceedings leading upto to the present petition, the nomenclature used is, at places, inaccurate and incorrect in view of what has been clarified by the Supreme Court.

Petitioner's case :

3. The genesis of the matter is the disconnection of an electricity connection bearing CA No.60002943599 by the petitioner for alleged non-payment of about Rs.8 lacs by the respondent towards dues for consumption of electricity. It is the petitioner's case that in view of the demand raised by it, earlier-on the respondent filed a case before the Lok Adalat for settlement of the dues; consequent whereupon, on 03.06.2015 the matter was mutually settled between the parties and it was agreed before the Lok Adalat that the respondent would pay to the petitioner Rs.6,08,910/- by 12.06.2015 in settlement of the amounts owed. It was further agreed between the parties that upon payment of the said amount, the petitioner would restore the electricity supply to the respondent. However, it would appear that the respondent failed to pay the agreed amount, and as a result, the petitioner did not restore the electricity supply. Thereafter the respondent filed civil suit bearing No.223/2015 before the Civil Judge, Rohini Courts, New Delhi in which, vide order dated 21.07.2015, the Civil Court directed that the respondent's electricity connection be restored subject to the respondent paying 50% of the total outstanding demand. However, yet again, the respondent failed to comply with the direction of the Civil Court and the respondent's electricity connection was therefore not restored.

4. Now, the respondent's electricity connection was disconnected on 26.05.2010 on account of non-payment of dues of about Rs.8 lacs. However it is alleged that during an inspection conducted by it on 28.07.2015 the petitioner found that the respondent had unauthorisedly restored the electricity connection; by reason of which petitioner initiated proceedings under section 126 of the ELECTRICITY ACT 2003 (" ELECTRICITY ACT " for short) and raised upon the respondent a demand of about Rs.30 lacs on account of unauthorised use of electricity, including misuse charges and a late