Orissa High Court
(Through Hybrid Mode) vs Nimai Caran Panigrahi on 2 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13217 of 2012
(Through hybrid mode)
Sub-Divisional Officer (Electrical) .... Petitioners
another
Mr. P. Mohanty, Senior Advocate
with A. Mishra, Advocate
and P. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Nimai Caran Panigrahi .... Opposite Party
Mr. B.K. Routray, Advocate
with Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, advocate
and A. Routray, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
Order No. 02.08.2022
05. 1. Mr. Mohanty, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of
petitioners, who hold offices in the supply company. He submits,
annexure-1 in the writ petition is notice dated 16th August, 2011 issued by
Grievance Redressal Forum, Berhampur on opposite party having had
moved it with his grievance. Opposite party thereafter moved the Permanent
Lok Adalat (PLA). The PLA illegally and with material irregularity
assumed jurisdiction to passed impugned award dated 1st February, 2012.
2. He relies on Electricity Act, 2003, sections 42(5) to (7). He submits,
the statute requires every distribution licencee to establish Forum for
redressal of grievances of consumers. The Forum has quasi judicial function
in dealing with the complaints. Further remedy to consumers is provided by
subsequent approach to the ombudsman, in event the consumer is aggrieved
by decision of the Forum. It cannot be disputed that by this mechanism there
is discharge of quasi judicial function.
3. He then draws attention to definitions section 2 (aaa) and sub-section
(1) in section 22C, both in Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. He
submits, definition of 'Court' includes any other authority constituted under
any law for the time being in force, to exercise judicial or quasi judicial
function. The Grievance Redressal Forum comes squarely within the
meaning. He submits further, section 22C(1) mandates that any party to a
dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any 'Court' make an
application to the PLA for settlement of the dispute. There also cannot be
any doubt raised that opposite party having had approached the Grievance
Redressal Forum, has to be said as had approached 'Court', defined by
section 2 (aaa) in the Act.
4. Mr. Routray, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party
and relies on impugned award. He submits, the PLA correctly relied on
section 25 in the 1987 Act to assume jurisdiction. He also relies on
judgments of the Supreme Court.
i) Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. vs. N. Satchidanand, reported in (2011)
7 SCC 463, paragraph 8 [Laws (SC), 2011-7-41 print]
ii) Bar Council of India vs. Union of India, reported in (2012) 8 SCC
243.
5. Petitioners contend that opposite party on having moved the
Grievance Redressal Forum had approached 'Court' within meaning of
section 2(aaa) in the 1987 Act. As such, they could not thereafter have
moved the PLA and the PLA acted illegally and with material irregularity in
exercising jurisdiction. It appears from impugned award that this
jurisdiction point was taken before the PLA. It dealt with the point on
reliance of section 25 in the 1987 Act. Section 25 is reproduced below.
"25. Act to have overriding effect--The provisions of this Act
shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force
or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other
than this Act."
6. In Inter Globe Aviation (supra) the Supreme Court dealt with
objection to jurisdiction of the PLA on the airline having relied upon its
conditions of carriage contracted with its passengers, in providing for all
disputes as shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Delhi only.
The Supreme Court held that the PLA is not a Court, inasmuch as, under
section 22C in the 1987 Act, it is provided that any party to a dispute may,
before the dispute brought before any Court, make an application to the
PLA. Therefore, the distinction between Court and PLA was thereby clear
and the aggrieved passengers having taken their grievance to the PLA and
the latter exercising jurisdiction, could not be said to have been done
illegally. In Bar Council of India (supra) Supreme Court rejected vires
challenge to provisions in the 1987 Act.
7. It is clear that the PLA, in this case, illegally assumed jurisdiction
under section 22B, on opposite party having moved it under section 22C.
Opposite party in doing so was in violation of sub-section (1) in section 22C
since, he had already moved the Grievance Redressal Forum, which is an
authority constituted under section 42 of Electricity Act, 2003, it being a
statute for the time being in force, to exercise quasi judicial function of
addressing grievances of consumers, one of whom is opposite party in
relation to the supplier.
8. For reasons aforesaid, impugned award is set aside and quashed.
Opposite party is at liberty to pursue his remedy before the Grievance
Redressal Forum. Mr. Mohanty points out, the forum has already passed its
order. In the circumstances, opposite party may ventilate his grievance
before the ombudsman, if aggrieved thereby.
9. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Prasant
