Permanent Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes without mutual consent and must facilitate settlement instead of mimicking formal court proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner through this Writ Petition challenges the institution of PLA Case No.72 of 2021 and the Order/Award dated 28.04.2022 passed therein by the Chairperson and Members of P.L.A (PUS), Mayurbhanj, Baripada constituted under "The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987" in exercise of Power under section 22C of the said Act to deal with the billing dispute arising out of Supply of electricity with arrears on account of consumption of electricity and awarding Compensation and Cost of litigation etc. against the O.P- licensee, contrary to the Rules and Regulations framed in consonance with "The Electricity Act, 2003" as illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized exercise of Power and Jurisdiction by the P.L.A, Mayurbhanj, Baripada.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The present Petitioners are the Electrical Engineers of the Distribution Licensee (TPNODL) within the meaning of Sec. 2(39) of The Electricity Act, 2003 being granted with the License under Section 14 of the said Act, by the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bhubaneswar and is, thus, authorized and engaged to distribute electricity to various categories of Consumers of electricity within the area of supply i.e. in the Northern Zone of Odisha with the stipulated terms and conditions in the License and also abided by the Rules and Regulations framed by OERC in consonance with the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. The Petitioners prefer this Writ Petition in their official capacity having been duly authorized by the Licensee (TPNODL) as they were parties to the proceeding in the Adalat below.

4. The facts of the case in brief is that the present O.P No.1 is a Consumer of electricity vide Con. No.5211-1101-0148 for a CD of 4.00 K.W in Domestic tariff Category under the Petitioner’s Company (erstwhile NESCO, presently-TPNODL) and used to pay the bills as per meter reading. In Aug 2020, he received a bill of Rs.45,395.70 for consumption of 8201 units for three months i.e May, June and July-2020, which according to him was inflated. He submitted written objection but without revising the same, the subsequent bills from Sept.2020 to June-2021(10 months) were generated @2734 units per month, demanding Rs.2,13,320/- as without any basis.

5. It was further alleged that without his knowledge, the O.P- Licensee removed the old and O.K meter and installed a new one on 22.01.2021 without his acknowledgement. No bill was served after installation of the new meter but the 1st bill for a period of 6 months was served on him in July-2921 for Consumption of 1050 units amounting to Rs.6,317/- which was also paid on 27.08.2021 by the Consumer. It was suggested for revision of the disputed bills as per the OERC Supply Code, but no steps are being taken by the Licensee for which, he suffered mental tension and agony owing to the conduct of the O.Ps/Supplier of electricity.

6. Owing to the aforesaid allegations and invoking exercise of Power and Jurisdiction u/Section- 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the present O.P Nos.1-Consumer as Petitioner approached the PLA (PUS), Mayurbhanj, Baripada praying for revision of some disputed bills and for award of Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation Cost of Rs.10,000/- from the O.P-Licensee on the allegation of deficiency of service and adoption of unfair trade practice in their part.

7. The aforesaid Complaint of the Consumer was registered as PLA Case Nos.72 of 2021 and, accordingly, notices were issued to the O.Ps (TPNODL) on 29.10.2021 by the office of the PLA fixing 15.11.2021 for their appearance and filing of Written Statement which were also filed on behalf of the present Petitioners