Shivam Builders And Developers vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4938 Jhar

                               1

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               W.P.(C) No. 3650 of 2020

Shivam Builders and Developers, a partnership firm, having its office
at Chakradharpur, Singbhum West through one of its partners
Mr. Nikesh Singhania                         ...    ...      Petitioner
                                  Versus
1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through its Chairman-cum-
   Managing Director, Ranchi
2. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing director,
   Ranchi
3. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam
   Limited, Jamshedpur Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur
4. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam
   Limited, Electric Supply Circle, Chaibasa
5. Electrical Executive Engineer, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited,
   Electric Supply Division-Chakradharpur, Electric Supply Circle-
   Chaibasa, Chakradharpur, Singhbhum West
6. Assistant Electrical Engineer, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited,
   Electric Supply Division-Chakradharpur, Electric Supply Circle-
   Chaibasa, Chakradharpur, Singhbhum West ...             Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                         -----

For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate For the Respondent-JUVNL : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Sr. SC, JUVNL

-----

Order No. 08 Dated: 21.12.2021

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to grant fresh electrical connection to the petitioner at the premises situated at Plot No. 292, Toklo Road, 368, Near Sai Mandir, Chakradharpur in furtherance to the application made by it through online mode which was registered as Request No. NC15254109 on 02.06.2020. Further prayer has been made for declaring that the petitioner cannot be imposed with the liability of the predecessor-in-title i.e., M/s Pawan Biscuit Company Private Limited amounting to Rs. 78,88,376/- allegedly towards unpaid electricity dues in respect of the said property purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the communication dated 03.09.2020 available on the website of JBVNL, wherein it has been stated that new service connection cannot be given to the petitioner as the said premises was in occupation of the erstwhile owner whose line had been disconnected due to unpaid

dues of Rs. 78,88,376/-. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay the penalty as envisaged in Section 43(3) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ―the Act, 2003‖) for their failure to supply electricity to the petitioner within one month after receipt of its application for fresh electrical connection.

2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the premises in question on 03.02.2020 from one Pawan Kumar Agarwal and thereafter applied for fresh electrical connection on 02.06.2020 under commercial services (NDS-II) tariff for a contracted load of 10 KW to be supplied at 400V (three phase) submitting all supporting documents as well as the requisite fee for the same. However, the application of the petitioner was rejected on 03.09.2020 stating that new electric service connection cannot be given for the said premises as there was a dues of Rs. 78,88,376/- against the erstwhile owner namely, M/s Pawan Biscuit Company Private Limited and for the said reason, electric connection of the said premises was disconnected. After three months, the petitioner again applied for a fresh electrical connection which was also rejected on the same ground. It is further submitted that the action of the respondents is absolutely contrary to the provisions of the Act, 2003 as well as the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulation, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ―the Regulations, 2015‖). Section 43 of the Act, 2003 casts a duty upon the distribution licensee to provide electric connection to a consumer within one month of the date of the application. The use of the word ‗shall' makes it evident that the said provision must be mandatorily followed. The consequence of failure to provide the electrical connection within the stipulated time is also provided under Section 43(3) of the Act, 2003 which goes to show that Section 43 has been enacted for the benefit of the consumers and casts a mandatory duty on the distribution licensee. It is also submitted that Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (JSERC), a statutory body formed under the Act, 2003, has framed the Regulations, 2015 which inter alia provides the

procedure for getting electricity connection. The second part of Clause 6.10(a) of the Regulations, 2015 stipulates that if the erstwhile consumer has left the premises making default in payment of electricity charges and the said premises has come in the legal possession of a new occupant through transfer, who has no nexus with the previous owner/occupant in any manner and applies for connection of the electrical line in the same disconnected premises, the distribution licensee shall provide the electrical connection to the applicant without realization of the arrear/dues of the premises payable by the erstwhile consumer and the subsequent transferee of the premises shall not be held liable to pay/discharge the liability of the previous consumer for securing a fresh connection. The petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the premises for valuable consideration and it is in no manner concerned with the erstwhile owner and thus the petitioner ought to have been granted fresh electrical connection. The petitioner has been informed by the erstwhile occupant that its factory got closed in July, 2006 and the alleged dues were only in respect of Annual Minimum Guarantee (AMG) bills for various years in respect of which it had filed a claim under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement. However, its claim has not yet been decided by the competent authority i.e., respondent no. 3 - General Manager-cum- Chief Engineer, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Jamshedpur Area, Bistupur. Since the last bill was raised in the year 2006, the said demand is now otherwise time barred. The respondents have based their claim on Clause 5.3.3 of the Regulations, 2015 but have not dealt with the petitioner's claim which is covered under Clause 6.10(a) of the Regulations, 2015.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents at the outset raises an objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy available before the Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum (VUSNF) and on this score alone the writ petition may not be entertained. Moreover, the petitioner had applied for electric connection on the basis of wrong information that there was no outstanding dues on the premises in question, however, the

true fact is that the petitioner had purchased the property which had electricity dues and the electricity connection was disconnected for non-payment of the same. It is also submitted that the petitioner did not submit ―no dues certificate‖ as per Clause 5.3.3 of the Regulations, 2015 due to which its request for fresh electricity connection has been rejected. The JBVNL through Certificate Officer, Chaibasa has initiated certificate proceeding against earlier occupant of the premises i.e., M/s Pawan Biscuit Company Private Limited for recovery of dues amount of Rs. 69,12,368/-.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Since the respondents have raised objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition, it deems appropriate to first deal with the issue as to whether a person who has any grievance with the distribution licensee in respect of getting new electricity service connection, has remedy available before the forum i.e., VUSNF and if so, whether a writ petition is not maintainable at the stage on the ground of an alternative efficacious remedy being available to the aggrieved party raising such grievance before the said forum.

5. To deal with the present issue I have perused sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Act, 2003 which provides that every distribution licensee shall, within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, whichever is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission.

6. Sub-section (6) of Section 42 provides that any consumer, who is aggrieved by non-redressal of his grievances under sub-section (5), may make a representation for redressal of his grievance to an authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed or designated by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission.

7. Section 181 of the Act, 2003 speaks about the powers of State Regulatory Commissions to make regulations and Clause (r) of

sub-section (2) of Section 181 empowers the State Regulatory Commissions to make guidelines under sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Act, 2003 and in exercise of that power the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission has framed guidelines i.e., Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations, 2020 in suppression of the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2011 and the same has been notified vide Gazette Notification No. 50 dated 12.01.2021. The said guidelines provide for establishment of forum by the distribution licensee for entertaining any complaint, procedure for disposal of complaint, constitution of Electricity Ombudsman for hearing appeal that may be preferred against an order of the Forum(s) as also the procedures which are adopted by the Electricity Ombudsman for entertaining the said appeal.

8. Section 2(d) of the Regulations, 2020 defines the complainant, 2(e) defines the complaint, 2(j) defines the defect or deficiency and 2(m) defines the electricity service. The said provisions are quoted as under for better appreciation of the matter:

2(d) "Complainant" means

(i) A consumer of electricity supplied by the licensee including applicants for new connections;

(ii) Any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force;

(iii) The Central Government or the State Government

- who or which makes complaint;

(iv) One or more consumer, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest in representative capacity, duly authorized by such consumers or set of consumers;

(v) In case of death of a consumer, his legal heirs or authorized representatives who makes the complaint;

2(e) "Complaint" means any grievance, in writing made by a complainant that:

(i) defect or deficiency in electricity supply or service provided by the licensee;

(ii) Unfair or restrictive trade practices of licensee in providing electricity services;

(iii) Charging of a price in excess of the price fixed by the Commission for supply of electricity and allied services;

(iv) Any error of billing;

(v) Erroneous disconnection of supply;

(vi) Electricity services which are unsafe or hazardous to public life provided in contravention of the provisions of any law or rule in force; or

(vii) Any other grievances related to supply of electricity by the licensee to the consumers except grievances arising under Sections 126, 135 to 139, 143, 152 and 161 of the Act.

(viii) Non-performance in Standards of Performance, as stipulated under Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licensee's Standard Performance) Regulation 2015

2(j) Defect or ‗Deficiency' means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law in force or has been undertaken to be performed by Distribution Licensee in pursuance of a contract Agreement or otherwise in relation to electricity service or performance standard, violations of Electricity Supply Code, contraventions of Act, Rules or Regulations made there under with regard to consumer interest;

2(m) ―Electricity Service‖ means in particular and without prejudice in generality of the term, electricity supply, metering, billing, maintenance of supply, maintenance of distribution system and all other attendant sub services etc.;

9. On bare reading of the aforesaid definitions it would be evident that the word ‗Complainant' is not confined only to a consumer of electricity, rather an applicant for new connection has also been included in the definition.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Vs. Ashok Iron Works (P) Ltd." reported in (2009) 3 SCC 240 has held as under:

15. Lord Watson in Dilworth v. Stamps Commr. [1899 AC 99] made the following classic statement: (AC pp.

105-06) ―... The word ‗include' is very generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. But the word ‗include' is susceptible of another construction, which may become imperative, if the context of the Act is sufficient to show that it was not merely employed for the purpose of adding to the natural significance of the words or expressions defined. It may be equivalent to ‗mean and include', and in that case it may afford an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expressions.‖

16. Dilworth [1899 AC 99 : (1895-99) All ER Rep Ext 1576 (PC)] and few other decisions came up for consideration in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. [(1987) 1 SCC 424] and this Court summarised the legal position that (Peerless case [(1987) 1 SCC 424] , SCC pp. 449-50, para 32) inclusive definition by the legislature is used: ―32. ... (1) to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases so as to take in the ordinary, popular and natural sense of the words and also the sense which the statute wishes to attribute to it; (2) to include meanings about which there might be some dispute; or (3) to bring under one nomenclature all transactions possessing certain similar features but going under different names.‖

17. It goes without saying that interpretation of a word or expression must depend on the text and the context. The resort to the word ―includes‖ by the legislature often shows the intention of the legislature that it wanted to give extensive and enlarged meaning to such expression. Sometimes, however, the context may suggest that word ―includes‖ may have been designed to mean ―means‖. The setting, context and object of an enactment may provide sufficient guidance for interpretation of the word ―includes‖ for the purposes of such enactment.

11. The Commission has also given an exhaustive definition of the word ―complainant‖ by including the applicant of new connection in it and by doing so the Commission has intended to bring all the disputes arising between the applicant of new connection and the distribution licensee within the jurisdiction of the Forum for appropriate adjudication. Thus, an application filed by an applicant

for new electricity connection alleging any of the grievances mentioned in Clause 2(e) shall be termed as ―complaint‖ and the same is maintainable before the Forum constituted by the Distribution Licensee in terms of section 42(5) of the Act, 2003. The word complaint has been defined in section 2(e) which includes the defect or deficiency in electricity supply or service provided by the licensee. Further the Defect or Deficiency has been defined under section 2(j) which includes violation of any of the terms and conditions of the Act, rules, regulations by the distribution licensee. Thus, on conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it would appear that if any applicant for new connection claims that a distribution licensee has failed to perform the duty envisaged in the Act, 2003 or Regulations, 2015, the same is to be termed as defect or deficiency and in such a situation, a complaint can be filed before the Forum constituted by the distribution licensee for redressal of grievances.

12. At this juncture, it would also be relevant to refer Section 43 of the Act, 2003 which is reproduced as under:

Section 43. (Duty to supply on request): --- (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply: Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub- stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission: Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, ―application‖ means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances.

(2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in

sub-section (1) :

Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission.

(3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default.

13. The Regulations, 2015 has been framed for fixing the obligations of the distribution licensee and consumers vis-à-vis each other and specify the set of practices that shall be adopted by the distribution licensee to provide efficient, cost-effective and friendly service to the consumers, in several matters including the procedure for supply of electricity connection. It would be appropriate to refer regulation 6.21 of the Regulations, 2015, which reads as under:

6.21: Upon receipt of a duly complete application accompanied with the required charges, security deposit and availability of suitable piece of land/room/distribution transformer as required by the Distribution Licensee, the Distribution Licensee shall sanction and carry out or permit to be carried out the works to give supply to the applicant.

14. Thus, Section 43 of the Act, 2003 and Regulations, 2015 casts a duty upon the distribution licensee to provide electricity to the owner or occupier of any premises. Hence, if any owner or occupier of a premise claims that the distribution licensee has failed to perform its statutory duty, then in my considered opinion, a complaint seeking new electricity connection for such deficiency in service is maintainable by such applicant before the Forum constituted by the distribution licensee.

15. So far the maintainability of the present writ petition is concerned, I have gone through various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the principle has been laid down to deal with a writ petition where alternative forum is available.

16. In the case of "Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. Vs. Mumbai Port Trust & Anr." reported in (2011) 2 SCC 575, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

14. In our opinion the writ petition filed by the appellants should have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction, and the discretion should not ordinarily be exercised if there is an alternative remedy available to the appellant. In this case there was a clear alternative remedy available to the appellants by raising an industrial dispute and hence we fail to understand why the High Court entertained the writ petition. It seems to us that some High Courts by adopting an over liberal approach are unnecessarily adding to their load of arrears instead of observing judicial discipline in following settled legal principles. However, we may also consider the case on merits.

17. In the case of "Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Association of India & Ors." reported in (2011) 14 SCC 337 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

11. We have considered the respective arguments/submissions. There cannot be any dispute that the power of the High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by parliamentary legislation--L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261]. However, it is one thing to say that in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order passed by or action taken by the State and/or its agency/instrumentality or any public authority or order passed by a quasi-judicial body/authority, and it is an altogether different thing to say that each and every petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution must be entertained by the High Court as a matter of course ignoring the fact that the aggrieved person has an effective alternative remedy. Rather, it is settled law that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.

18. In the case of "Union of India & Ors. Vs. Shri Kant Sharma & Anr." reported in (2015) 6 SCC 773, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:

36. The aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court can be summarised as follows:

(i) The power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 is one of the basic essential

features of the Constitution and any legislation including the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 cannot override or curtail jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.(Refer: L. Chandra Kumar [L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261] and S.N. Mukherjee [(1990) 4 SCC 594].)

(ii) The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 though cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of any enactment, they will certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the Acts and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act. (Refer: Mafatlal Industries Ltd. [(1997) 5 SCC 536])

(iii) When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. (Refer: Nivedita Sharma [(2011) 14 SCC 337].)

(iv) The High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. (Refer: Nivedita Sharma [(2011) 14 SCC 337])

19. It is now well settled that though no legislative enactment can override or curtail the power of judicial review of High Court as conferred by the Constitution of India under Article 226 which is the basic feature of constitution, yet if a statutory forum is created for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring such statutory dispensation.

20. Electricity Act, 2003 is a legislative mandate to consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to development of electricity industry, promoting competition, protecting interest of consumers and supply of electricity to all areas, rationalization of electricity tariff, ensuring transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies, constitution of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and establishment of Appellate Tribunal. The preamble of the Act, 2003 speaks about its aim for taking care of various aspects including protecting interest of consumers. It is evident from the

Regulations, 2020 framed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission that the constitution of Forum(s) is statutorily required which shall consist three members in which one member is required to be a judicial officer holding the post not below the rank of Additional District Judge having 20 years of experience in judicial work and the second member should be possessing degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical & Instrumentation/Electrical and Electronics having 20 years of experience in the Transmission, Distribution and Trading of Electricity or shall be at least a CA/ICWA or MBA (Finance) with 20 years of experience and knowledge of Accounts and Finance. The third member shall be independent Member, who shall be representative of a registered society/NGO/consumer organization having 5 years of experience in consumer-related matters. Thus, the Forum so constituted deserves to be treated as statutory body consisting of the adjudicators having due expertise of their relevant fields and capable of providing redressal of the grievances of the aggrieved persons. In such circumstance, the scope of judicial review is minimal as has been delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred hereinabove.

21. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has put reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Brihanmumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) & Ors." reported in (2015) 2 SCC 438 in support of his submission that a person seeking fresh electrical connection or against refusal of the same by the distribution licensee, cannot raise his grievance before the Forum created under Section 42(5) of the Act, 2003. In the said case, the consumer wanted to switch over his electricity connection from Brihanmumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) to Tata Power Company (TPC) as per his electricity requirement. In response to his request, TPC advised the consumer to approach BEST for its permission to use distribution network of BEST to enable TPC to supply electricity to the consumer using that network. Accordingly the consumer turned to

BEST requesting it to give the said permission. However the required permission was not granted by BEST and thus the consumer approached Mumbai Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as ―the Regulatory Commission‖). In the meantime, Respondents 4 to 8 of the said case also filed similar petitions before the Regulatory Commission with same relief as they also wanted to switch over to TPC for their electricity requirement. After hearing all the parties, the Regulatory Commission passed orders dated 22.02.2010 holding inter alia that TPC was bound to supply electricity in terms with applicable Regulations and, therefore, direction was issued to TPC to supply electricity to the consumers either through BEST wires or its own wires. BEST challenged the order of the Regulatory Commission by filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi however the same was dismissed.

22. The said matter having reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant raised one of the contentions that there was an alternative remedy available to the consumer(s) to approach the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) established under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and as such the consumer(s) should have approached the said Forum instead of filing petition before the Regulatory Commission. There Lordships rejected the contention raised by the appellant and dismissed the appeal holding inter alia in para 8 and 9 as under:

Issue 1: Re: Jurisdiction of the Regulatory Commission

8. This contention was raised primarily on the ground that there was an alternative remedy provided to the consumer to raise his grievances before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) established under Section 42(5) of the Act. Therefore, the consumer should have approached the said Forum instead of filing petition before the Regulatory Commission. This contention is totally misconceived and rightly rejected by the authorities below. As noted above, the petition was filed by the consumer seeking direction against TPC to supply electricity to him. Thus, he approached the Regulatory Commission to enforce a distribution licensee obligation under the Act. As on that date, he was not the consumer of TPC but wanted to become its consumer. Insofar as CGRF

is concerned, which each distribution licensee is required to set up under Section 42(5) of the Act, it deals with the grievances of the consumer. ―Consumer‖ is defined under Section 2(15) of the Act and reads as under:

"2.(15) ... any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be.‖

9. Thus, Respondent 3 not being a consumer could not have approached CGRF. Further, we find that in Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Reliance Energy Ltd. [(2007) 8 SCC 381], this Court has held that the Regulatory Commission has the power to require a licensee to fulfil its obligations under the Act. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Regulatory Commission had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the consumer. Presumably, for this reason, this contention was pressed half-heartedly before us and given up in the middle.

23. It is thus evident that the facts and circumstances in the aforesaid case were entirely different from the case in hand. In the present case, the Electricity Regulatory Commission constituted by the State of Jharkhand has framed Regulations, 2020 which explicitly defines the word ―Complainant‖ including in its ambit the consumer of electricity as well as the applicants for new connection who have complaint against the distribution licensee. Thus, the Jharkhand State Regulatory Commission has already empowered the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum(s) constituted by the distribution licensee(s) to entertain a complaint of an intending consumer having grievance against the distribution licensee particularly with respect to its refusal to grant fresh electricity connection. In the aforesaid case, Their Lordships while interpreting the word ―consumer‖ as defined under Section 42(5) of the Act, 2003 have been pleased to hold that the term ―consumer‖ does not include a person who applied for grant of electricity connection as by that time he had not become the consumer. However, in the case in hand, by virtue of framing the

Regulation, 2020, the Jharkhand State Regulatory Commission, in specific term provides for entertaining ―complaint‖ by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum not only from the consumers but also from the applicants for new connection i.e., filed by the intending consumers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Brihanmumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking" (supra) has interpreted the definition of the word ―consumer‖ as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act, 2003 and has held that the respondent no. 3 of that case was not the consumer of TPC, rather wanted to become its consumer and as such it could not have approached the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. However, in the case in hand, the Regulations, 2020 framed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission in exercise of the power conferred under Section 181 of the Act, 2003 defines the word ―complainant‖ in clear term which means a consumer of electricity supplied by the distribution licensee including the applicants for new connection which is an exhaustive definition of ―complainant‖. Since the definition of ―complainant‖ is clear and unambiguous, I am of the considered view that if a narrow interpretation is given to it, the same will defeat the objective sought to be achieved by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission. Hence, the petitioner could have filed a complaint before the Forum. The petitioner has neither assailed the power of the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission in framing such Regulations nor has challenged any of the provisions of the Regulations, 2020. Since the Regulations, 2020 empowers the Forum to also entertain a complaint filed by an intending consumer, the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage as the petitioner has an alternative, efficacious and statutory remedy to ventilate its grievance before the Forum created by the JBVNL under Section 42(5) of the Act, 2003. Moreover, it will also be in the interest of the applicants requiring fresh electrical connection to move before the VUSNF if the distribution licensee fails to provide the same as it is an expert body created to deal with such matters expeditiously.

24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not

inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage as the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing a complaint before the VUSNF.

25. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a complaint before the VUSNF for grant of fresh electric connection.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish/AFR