HP High Court Pulls Up Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Orders Training For Members Who Flouted Judicial Discipline By Defying Ombudsman's Directives

Reprimanding the members of the forum for violating Judicial decorum Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan observed,

“Clearly, in such circumstances, both the aforesaid members cannot be permitted to discharge their duties as Adjudicators till and so long they are not well acquainted with the principles regarding judicial decorum, legal propriety, judicial discipline and binding precedent in hierarchal system of Adjudication”.

Background of the Case:

M/s Vardhman Ispat Udyog, an industrial unit, approached the Forum contesting the electricity tariff category assigned to them by HPSEB Ltd. The Forum initially rejected the complaint citing the pendency of a writ petition on the same issue. However, the Electricity Ombudsman, upon appeal, directed the Forum to decide the matter on merits.

Despite the Ombudsman's orders, the Forum twice dismissed the complaint without considering its merits. This blatant disregard for the superior authority's directives prompted M/s Vardhman Ispat Udyog to move the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The petitioner argued that the Forum's actions amounted to a breakdown of judicial discipline and undermined the hierarchical system of adjudication. Respondent No. 1 (HPSEB Ltd.) contended that the petition was premature as a review petition filed against the Ombudsman's order was pending. Interestingly, Respondent No. 2 (Ombudsman) did not defend its own directives.

Court's Observations:

Frowning on the manner in which the forum had repetadealy ignored the directives of the Ombudsman Justice Chauhan severely criticized the Forum's conduct, terming it "gross impropriety" and "subversive to judicial discipline.

..The manner in which the Forum adjudicated the complaint by sitting over the orders passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Ombudsman, cannot be countenanced and such conduct is absolutely illegal and shocking. The conduct of both the members of the Forum to say the least is most unbecoming that of quasi-judicial authority and in my considered view both the members of the Forum as of now are absolutely unfit to discharge any such functions”, the bench remarked.

Emphasising the importance of judicial comity and adherence to the principle of binding precedents the court cited several Supreme Court decisions including Union of India vs. Kamalkshi Finance Corporation (1984), Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra vs. Land Acquisition Officer (1992), Tirupati Balaji Developers vs. State of Bihar (2004), and Kishore Samrite vs. State of UP (2013) and recorded,

“Judicial discipline requires decorum known to law which warrants that the appellate directions should be followed in the hierarchical system by the Courts/quasi-judicial authorities, which exist in this country. It is, therefore, necessary for each lower tier to accept loyally the decision of the higher tier. The judicial or quasi-judicial system only works if someone is allowed to have the last word and if the last word, once spoken is loyally accepted”.

In its clear message to uphold Judicial discipline the High Court ordered the immediate withdrawal of all cases from the Forum and mandated judicial training for its members at the Judicial Academy in Ghandal.

“After satisfying itself, the competent authority may, if it finds these officers or any one of them, to be suitable, post them or any one of them as members of the Forum”, the bench concluded.

Case Title: M/s Vardhaman Ispat Udyog Vs HPSEB Ltd. & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) HP 8

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment