Statutory provisions must be strictly followed, and jurisdiction cannot be extended to forums lacking authority over specific statutory disputes.

JUDGMENT

Consumer against the order in respect of the proceedings initiated under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 viz the provisional and final assessment instead of availing the remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 , invoked the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalath under Section 22 (c) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 .

2. Mr. Pramod learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner representing the Kerala State Electricity Board submits that once the statute provides a specific alternative remedy, the said procedure cannot be circumvented in the manner and mode in which it has been followed. In support of the contention judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 9.2.2016 inDakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and Anr. v. Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Gurgaon and Anr. and UHBVN Ltd and others v. Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services and another dated 4.3.2016 have been relied upon.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the consumer was not properly advised to avail the remedy. However an opportunity may be given to plead an evidence by condoning the period spent in litigating the matter before the incompetent authority.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that the Permanent Lok Adalath, being a creature of the Legal Services Authorities, has no jurisdiction to enter into dispute involving Indian Electricity Act, 2003 . It is settled law that where a statute provides availment of a particular remedy that cannot be bypassed subject to the convenience and choice of the litigant. The specific objection qua the maintainability was taken before the Lok Adalath but the same has been rejected in a most repugnant and cryptic manner . In this view of the matter, the order of the Lok Adalath is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondent consumer to take an appropriate remedy by excluding the period spent in litigating before the Permanent Lok Adalath to avail the remedy as prescribed under Section 127 .

Sd/-

sab AMIT RAWAL JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17918/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE SITE MAHASAR.

EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL BILL DATED

4.2.2013.

EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED

11.2.2013 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER PASSED ON

20.3.2013 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 1.4.2013.

EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 4.4.2013.

EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE PERMANANT LOK ADALATH AS OP 192/2013.

EXHIBIT P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE AWAD PASSED BY THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH DATED 11.1.2016.