The court has the inherent power to act 'ex debito justitia' to do that real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

Headnote:
Electricity Supply Act - Interpretation of Ss.151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Ss.151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Inherent power of the Court - Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court - Court has inherent power to act 'ex debito justitia' to do that real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the court - The court has the power and duty to make every order which can be said to be fairly and properly consequential upon the judgment delivered - The court has the power to correct a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission and to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention
Fact of the Case:

A batch of 224 Original Petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of the Court, with differing conclusions regarding the scope and interpretation of the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The matter was posted before a third judge for consideration. The petitioners sought correction of a judgment to grant them consequential reliefs prayed for in the Original Petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were entitled to succeed and that the petitioners are entitled to the refund of only the excess amounts or rates, deposited or paid, as per the notifications dated 28-7-1980 and 8-7-1982, over and above, the rates due before the notification dated 28-7-1980.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court had the power to correct a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission in the judgment delivered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it has the inherent power to act 'ex debito justitia' to do that real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The court has the power and duty to make every order which can be said to be fairly and properly consequential upon the judgment delivered.
Final Decision: The court held that the petitioners are entitled to the refund of only the excess amounts or rates, deposited or paid, as per the notifications dated 28-7-1980 and 8-7-1982, over and above, the rates due before the notification dated 28-7-1980. The court amended the judgment to incorporate the above relief.

Judgment :-

1. A batch of 224 Original Petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, of which I was a member, by a common judgment dated 31-1-1984. We differed regarding the scope and interpretation of the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and reached different conclusions in our separate judgments dated 31-1-1984. It was held by me that the notification promulgated by the Kerala State Electricity Board dated 28-7-1980 and the notification of the Board dated 8-7-1982, called the 1st and second revisions, are illegal, unauthorised, arbitrary and unreasonable. They were quashed. The matter was posted by the learned Ag. Chief Justice for consideration, before a third judge, Mr. Justice K. K. Narendran, by order dated 1-2-1984.

2. In O. P. No. 1861 of 1983 apart from the prayer to quash the above notifications, there is a further prayer in Para.17 of the Original Petition to the following effect:-

'(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction to prohibit respondents 1 and 3 from assessing and/or collecting electric charges from the petitioners according to the rates provided in the notification evidenced by Ext. P5 and in case the said respondents or other officers of the 1st respondent demand and/or recover electric charges from the petitioners or from any one of the partners of the 1st petitioner at the rates prescribed by Ext. P5, to command the respondents 1 and 3 to refund to the petitioners the sums that may be recovered from them pursuant to Ext. P5 with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum till date of payment."

(Ext. P5 is the notification in the said case dealing with the second revision dated 8th July, 1982). In this miscellaneous petition, it is prayed that my judgment dated 31-1-1984 in the above O.P., may be corrected granting the petitioners the consequential reliefs prayed for in prayer (b) of the Original Petition extracted above. It is contended that since the notification dated 8-7-1982 (Ext. P5) impugned in the Original Petition, has been declared to be illegal and unauthorised and has been quashed, the petitioners are entitled, in the circumstances, to the consequential relief prayed for in the O.P., prayer (b), and it is only due to an accidental slip or omission, the consequential relief was not expressly stated and/or afforded in allowing the O.P. Correction in that behalf is prayed for. Similar is the prayer in the other civil miscellaneous petitions also in O.P. 2135 of 1983, but in other cases, the refund for amounts assessed as per 28-7-1980 notification, are also included. The petitioners have referred to and relied on S.151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this behalf. The petitioners were represented by Adv. Mr. V. Rama Shenoi. The respondents were represented by Mr. K. P. G. Menon, Advocate. I heard counsel for both parties. The petitioners' counsel argued that this court has "inherent power" to correct the above accidental slip or omission and grant the consequential relief prayed for, in prayer (b) extracted above. On the other hand Mr. K. P. G. Menon, counsel for the respondents submitted that the petition filed under S.151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not sustainable. Counsel argued that the said provisions of law will not apply to correct the accidental slips or errors or omissions in the judgments rendered in exercise of the powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. On this basis, the prayer contained in the petition cannot be allowed. That is the only objection raised by counsel for the respondents.

3. Having heard counsel on both sides, I am of opinion that the petitioners are entitled to succeed.

4. Ss.151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure are to the following effect:

"151. Saying of inherent powers of Court: Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court."

"152. Ame

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis