Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16115 of 2013

Petitioner :- M/S Torrent Power Ltd.

Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.S. Pandey

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

Ms. Aanshi Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gaurav

Tripathi, Advocate informed that Sri Ashutosh Srivastava,

learned counsel for the petitioner (as then His Lordship

was) has been elevated to the Bench of this Court. He has

put in appearance on behalf of petitioner and filed his

vakalatnama today, which is taken on record.

Heard Ms. Aanshi Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri

Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Standing Counsel for State- respondent no. 1 and Sri J.S.

Pandey learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

By way of present petition, petitioner is assailing the order

dated 28.02.2013 only on the ground that Permanent Lok

Adalat has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and

Permanent Lok Adalat is confined to conciliation and

settlement only. In case of failure of settlement, Permanent

Lok Adalat could not proceed to decide the matter on

merits. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance

upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of M/s

Torrent Power Ltd. V. State of U.P. and others (Civil

Misc. Writ Petition No. 41139 of 2012) reported as

2014(1)ADJ 563 decided on 02.12.2013.

Learned standing counsel could not dispute either facts of

the case or legal submissions made by learned counsel for

petitioner.

I have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for petitioner and perused the judgment of this

Court passed in M/s Torrent Power Ltd.(Supra). Relevant

paragraph Nos. 23 & 24 of the said judgment is quoted

below:-

"23. 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.

24. Further, the Court is of the opinion that where the

conciliation fails between the parties and no settlement is

arrived at, the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot proceed any

further nor can it decide the matter on merits under

Section 22-C(vii) of the Act. The reason is not far to see.

The adjudicatory role, which the Permanent Lok Adalat is

required to follow is only with regard to a dispute which

does not relate to an offence under sub-clause-(viii) The

words used are "does relate to an offence" which is totally

different and distinct from the words used under the 1st

proviso to Section 22-C(1), namely, "matter relating to an

offence not compoundable in law".

Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case

as well as law laid down by this Court in the matter of M/s

Torrent Power Ltd.(Supra), impugned award dated

28.02.2013 is bad and is hereby quashed.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 15.12.2021

Rmk.