Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. v.
Smt. Savitri Devi Goyal
Writ Petitions No.7319, 7320, 8215, 8216 of 2011 and
3546, 3547, 3551, 4375 of 2012 (Gwalior); Decided on 30.1.2013.
A bare perusal of this para shows that where the Court/Forum lacks inherent jurisdiction, this objection can be taken at any stage and even at the stage of execution.
Held : In the light of the aforesaid judgments read with the provisions of the Regulations makes it clear that there was a specific method by which a complaint can be preferred for a grievance. If a problem does not fall within the ambit of 'complaint' and 'grievance' under the Regulations, the Forum cannot entertain it. Bar created under clause 3.35 also excludes jurisdiction of the Forum in certain matters. Thus, if beyond the aforesaid, the Forum had exceeded jurisdiction and entertained the matters, in my opinion, it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal, and therefore, whether or not such objection is taken before the Forum, this Court can interfere in the matter.
On the basis of aforesaid analysis, it is clear that the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the matters. Hence, the orders of the Forum impugned herein are without authority of law and cannot be upheld. Consequently, the orders impugned (Annexure P-1) are set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. However, it is made clear that the consumers-respondents herein are at liberty to avail the remedy available to them under the law and if they avail the said remedy promptly, time consumed before the Forum and this Court will not be taken into account for the purpose of counting limitation under any law. (2010)4 SCC 539, (2012)2 SCC 108, AIR 1956 SC 340, (2005)7 SCC 791, (2007)2 SCC 355 and (2007)6 SCC 382 followed. 2012(II) MPWN 16 relied on.
(2) Interpretation of Statutes -- must be made in view of object of its drafting. ILR (2008) MP 1599 distinguished. [Paras 5 & 12
¼1½ fo|qr vf/kfu;e] 2003 && /kkjk 126 && e-iz- fo|qr fu;ked vk;ksx ¼miHkksDrkvksa dh f'kdk;rksa ds izfrrks"k.k ds fy, Qksje rFkk fo|qr yksdiky dk LFkkiu½ ¼iqujh{k.k 1½ fofu;eu] 2009 && [kaM 3-35 && dfri; fo"k;ksa ds ekeyksa ds laca/k esa Qksje ds fy, fofufnZ"V otZu ds ckotwn ml Qksje us vkns'k ikfjr fd, && vf/kdkfjrk ds varfuZfgr vHkko dk ekeyk && iwoksZDr vkns'kksa dks vikLr djus ds fy, mPp U;k;ky; dk gLr{ksiA
bl iSjk ds ifj'khyu ek= ls ;g nf'kZr gksrk gS fd tgka U;k;ky;@Qksje esa varfuZfgr vf/kdkfjrk dk vHkko gksrk gS] ;g vkifRr fdlh Hkh izdze esa rFkk fu"iknu ds izdze esa Hkh dh tk ldrh gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fofu;eksa ds mica/kksa lfgr iwoksZDr fu.kkZ;ksa ds izdk'k esa ;g Li"V gS fd fofufnZ"V <ax Fkk ftlds }kjk gh f'kdk;r ds fy, ifjokn izLrqr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;fn leL;k fofu;eksa ds v/khu ^^ifjokn** rFkk ^^f'kdk;r** ds {ks= ds Hkhrj ugha vkrh gS] Qksje bls xzg.k ugha dj ldrkA [kaM 3-35 ds v/khu l`ftr otZu Hkh dfri; ekeyksa esa Qksje dh vf/kdkfjrk dk otZu djrk gSA bl izdkj] ;fn iwoksZDr ds ijs Qksje us vf/kdkfjrk dk vfrdze.k fd;k rFkk ekeyksa dks xzg.k fd;k] esjh jk; esa] ;g vf/kdj.k dh vksj ls vf/kdkfjrk ds varfuZfgr vHkko dk ekeyk gS] rFkk blfy,] Hkys&gh Qksje ds le{k ;g vkifRr yh xbZ gks ;k u yh xbZ gks] ;g U;k;ky; bl ekeys esa gLr{ksi dj ldrk gSA
iwoksZDr fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij] ;g Li"V gS fd Qksje dks ekeys xzg.k djus rFkk mUgsa fuiVkus dh dksbZ vf/kdkfjrk ugha FkhA blfy,] ;gka vkf{kIr Qksje ds vkns'k fof/k dh izkf/kdkfjrk jfgr gSa rFkk mUgsa ekU; ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA ifj.kkeLo:i] vkf{kIr vkns'k ¼mikca/k ih&1½ vikLr fd, tkrs gSaA jfV ;kfpdk,a eatwj dh tkrh gSaA rFkkfi] ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd blesa miHkksDrkx.k&izRFkhZx.k dks fof/k ds v/khu mUgsa miyC/k mipkj dk miHkksx djus dh Lora=rk gS rFkk ;fn os mDr mipkj dk rRijrk ls miHkksx djrs gSa rc fdlh Hkh fof/k ds v/khu ifjlhek dh x.kuk djus ds iz;kstu ds fy, Qksje rFkk bl U;k;ky; ds le{k O;rhr gqvk le; x.kuk esa ugha fy;k tk,xkA ¼2010½4 ,l lh lh 539] ¼2012½2 ,l lh lh 108] , vkb vkj 1956 ,l lh 340] ¼2005½7 ,l lh lh 791] ¼2007½2 ,l lh lh 355 rFkk ¼2007½6 ,l lh lh 382 vuqlfjrA 2012¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 16 voyafcrA
¼2½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && bls cukus ds mn~ns'; dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, fd;k tkuk pkfg,A vkb ,y vkj ¼2008½ ,e ih 1599 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 5 ,oa 12
1. In these batch of petitions similar questions are involved, and therefore, with the consent of parties, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.
2. The facts are taken from Writ Petition No.7319/2011. The Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (the Company) has filed this writ petition against the order of Electricity Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (the Forum) dated 26.9.2011. The respondent-consumer filed an application under section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Forum. The respondent stated that she is a consumer and her electricity meter is placed outside her shop. On 25.4.2011 the Vigilance Team of the Company checked the said electricity connection/meter and prepared a provisional bill. By communication dated 30.4.2011 (Annexure P-6), an amount of Rs.66,584/- was provisionally assessed and the respondent was directed to either accept this amount or file her objection.
3. Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in these batch of petitions in certain matters, objections were taken about jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint/proceedings before the Forum and in certain cases, those objections were not taken. He submits that the Forum had inherent lack of jurisdiction, and therefore, interference be made by this Court. He relied on certain provisions of the Electricity Act and the regulations by which the Forum was constituted. The regulation is known as MPERC (Establishment of Forum and Electricity Ombudsman for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers (Revision I) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter called as ‘Regulations’).
4. Per contra, Shri A.V. Bhardwaj, Shri J.P. Kushwah, Shri B.D. Jain, Shri K.K. Shrivastava, Shri Abhishek Parashar and Shri Rajesh Mittal, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the order passed by the Forum. In cases where no objection about maintainability of the proceedings before the Forum is taken by the Company, learned counsel for the respective respondent submit that once the Company has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Forum, it is no more open for the Company to state for the first time before this Court that the Forum was lacking jurisdiction. The main contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that it was obligatory on the part of the Company to establish their specific case under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Forum. Only when the said case was established to the hilt before the Forum, a conclusion can be drawn that the Forum had no jurisdiction. In absence thereof, it cannot be said that Forum had no jurisdiction. By drawing the attention of this Court on the language of section 126 of the Electricity Act, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that when it is not in dispute that respondents had an authorized electricity connection, mere over-drawl of electricity beyond permissible limit will not amount to unauthorized use of electricity within the meaning of section 126 of the Electricity Act.
5. Shri A.V. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for one of the respondent, submits that in ILR (2008) MP 1599 (Dr. Hari Singh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya Sagar (M.P.) and another v. Rajeshwar Yadav), this Court interpreted section 2(2) explanation of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 and opined that the word ‘petitioner’ used in the explanation does not mean that petitioner who files a writ petition, but to understand as a party who files the writ appeal.l He submits that the provisions of the Regulations are to be interpreted in the same manner, and therefore, it will be open for both the parties to prefer appeal against the order of the Forum.
6. In rejoinder submission, Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against an order passed under section 126, appeal lies under section 127 to the statutory appellate authority and as per the Regulations, there was a specific bar to deal with the matters which ar
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
