Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2162
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
Pashchimanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Permanent Lok Adalat Moradabad and Another - Respondent
Writ - C No. 39082 of 2018
Decided On : 20-12-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Usha Kiran
For the Respondent: R.P.S. Chauhan
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 – Petition filed challenging order – Application filed provisional assessment order made by petitioner against its consumer – lok adalat award – Challenged – held, Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat had been found to be without jurisdiction, the same is a nullity – It has no effect – Therefore, the interpretation cannot be accepted and the statute cannot be read in the manner as it may lead to plainly absurd results where, upon failure of a validly initiated proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat, the parties may be left remedy less – Petitioner’s objection that are claimed to have filed in response to the provisional assessment order may be decided by the petitioner authority on their own merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the respondents – Present writ petition is allowed. (Para 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
The present writ petition has been filed by the Pashchimanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. against the order dated 29.09.2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Moradabad, in Complaint Case No.03 of 2018 (Kunwar Petrol Vs. Pashchimanchal Vidhyut). By that award, the Permanent Lok Adalat has set aside the provisional assessment order made by the petitioner against its consumer namely respondent no.2.
Findings of the case:
Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat had been found to be without jurisdiction, the same is a nullity – It has no effect – Therefore, the interpretation cannot be accepted and the statute cannot be read in the manner as it may lead to plainly absurd results where, upon failure of a validly initiated proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat, the parties may be left remedy less – Petitioner’s objection that are claimed to have filed in response to the provisional assessment order may be decided by the petitioner authority on their own merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the respondents.
Result: Present writ petition is allowed
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Ms. Usha Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the private-respondent.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Pashchimanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. against the order dated 29.09.2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Moradabad, in Complaint Case No.03 of 2018 (Kunwar Petrol Vs. Pashchimanchal Vidhyut). By that award, the Permanent Lok Adalat has set aside the provisional assessment order made by the petitioner against its consumer namely respondent no.2.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner is a public utility service provider and the respondent no.2 is its consumer. Pursuant to certain complaints received by the petitioner, with respect to 4KW power connection availed by the respondent no.2, an inspection was conducted whereupon an allegation of theft of electricity arose against the respondent no.2. It gave rise to a provisional assessment order dated 05.12.2017, in terms of Section 126(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), creating a demand of Rs. 6,36,553/-. The respondent no. 2 filed an objection to the provisional assessment order on 26.12.2017, whereafter no final assessment order was passed. Those proceedings have remained pending. At the same time, it appears, the respondent no. 2 instituted a proceeding before the Permanent Lok Adalat in January, 2018.
5. The Permanent Lok Adalat has decided the matter by its order dated 29.09.2018. The three members of the Permanent Lok Adalat passed that order upon a difference of opinion. While the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat opined that the claim made before that authority was not maintainable, the other two members held otherwise and set aside the provisional assessment order. The claim petition was thus allowed on a majority opinion.
6. In the present writ petition, at the fresh stage itself, affidavits have been exchanged and the matter is being thus decided finally.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, by virtue of the clear language of Section 22-C(1), first proviso, read with Section 22-C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Legal Services Act), the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition or to decide the same inasmuch as admittedly, the allegation of theft had been levelled against the respondent no.2 under Section 135 of the Act. She would therefore submit, though the Permanent Lok Adalat may have had jurisdiction to pass an award upon successful conclusion of conciliation proceedings, however, once the conciliation proceedings had failed, the Permanent Lok Adalat had no option but to close the proceedings. Its adjudicatory jurisdiction did not arise in view of the allegation of offence of theft (levelled against the respondent no. 2), in respect to the dispute brought before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The fact that the offence of theft of electricity may have been compoundable was a relevant factor only for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction in the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliatory jurisdiction but not adjudicatory jurisdiction.
8. In this regard, reliance has been placed on an earlier decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of M/S Torrent Power Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41139 of 2012, decided on 04.12.2013. Upon consideration of the provisions as also the existing precedent, the learned Single Judge had held as below:
“In the light of the aforesaid provision, an application by a consumer in a matter relating to theft of energy can be filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The Permanent Lok Adalat will have jurisdiction to entertain such an application for conciliation and for settlement of the said dispute, in view of first proviso to Section 22-C of the Act.
Further, the Court is of the opinion that where the conciliation fails between the parties a
