Permanent Lok Adalat Cannot Entertain Complaints Against Final Order Passed U/S 126 Electricity Act: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that a Permanent Lok Adalat is not competent to maintain an application under Section 22 of Legal Services Authorities Act against the final order passed under Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act.Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey observed that Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act constitute a complete code in itself and there is remedy of...
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that a Permanent Lok Adalat is not competent to maintain an application under Section 22 of Legal Services Authorities Act against the final order passed under Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act.
Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey observed that Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act constitute a complete code in itself and there is remedy of appeal against the final assessment order.
"After going through the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, it is quite vivid that the provisions contemplated under Section 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act constitute a complete code in itself and there is remedy of appeal against the final assessment order."
The judgement was passed on a petition filed by Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited.
The respondent was the petitioner company's consumer and he had two electricity connection services. In 2010, an inspection was carried out by the company's officials at his residence and a report was prepared as per which an excess of the connected load was found to be used apart from an additional 100 watt being illegally used for commercial purposes.
Thereafter, an electricity consumption bill of Rs. 54020/- was issued to the respondent. When the respondent objected to it, his electricity connection was disconnected. Out of compulsion, he deposited the entire bill amount.
Alleging that there were mistakes in the inspection report, the respondent moved a representation before the authorities under Section 22 of Legal Services Authorities Act. Meanwhile, an additional amount was recovered from him by the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, he claimed the amount of penalty, connection charges and compensation for mental agony and harassment.
The petitioner company argued that the service connection was registered for domestic purposes and that he had used beyond the permitted load. It added that a copy of the report was served upon the respondent but he had not raised any objection then. The act of the respondent is covered under Section 126(4) of the Electricity Act and likewise, according to Chhattisgarh Electricity Supply Act, if the load is in excess than permitted, it would come within the purview of said Section, it was contended.
The permanent Lok Adalat in the judgment passed in 2013 held that it was not proved that the respondent was using domestic connection for commercial purposes. Since he had deposited the entire bill amount, the Lok Adalat said he was entitled to recover the penalty amount. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved the High Court.
Advocate Sudeep Agrawal appearing for the petitioner submitted that the decision of the permanent Lok Adalat is without jurisdiction and the order of the provisional assessment was passed in accordance with Section 126(2) of the Electricity Act and order of final assessment was passed as per Section 127. Therefore, it argued that the respondent had remedy to prefer appeal before the appellate authority.
Advocate Sameeksha Gupta instructed by Advocate B.P. Sharma represented the respondent and countered that the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is well within its jurisdiction, that the petitioner company had not complied with Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act and that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent before passing the final assessment order.
The Court found that in the application before the Permanent Lok Adalat, the petitioner had raised an objection that the Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since as per Section 145 of the Electricity Act, the jurisdiction of civil court is barred against any decision taken in pursuance of Section 126 of the Electricity Act.
The Single Judge also noted that the copies of the inspection report and provisional assessment for unauthorized use of electricity were sent to the respondent. However, the respondent never raised any objection to the provisional assessment within the period of 30 days as stipulated under sub-section (3) of Section 126 of Electricity Act. Further, the respondent had requested the petitioner company to convert his electricity connection service for commercial purposes.
It was also found that the respondent had requested to clear the dues in installments which was acceded to by the petitioner. In fact, the respondent had preferred the application 11 months after the final assessment order was issued.
The Court held that from bare perusal of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, it appears that the consumer has to be served with the notice inviting him to file objection within stipulated time. If excess load of consumption is found, assessing officer is required to pass the final order within 30 days from the date of service of such notice of provisional assessment.
If the consumer fails to pay the provisional assessment amount and files an objection under Section 126(3), then after affording opportunity to the consumer, the assessing officer shall assess the amount and pass the order of fine in terms of Section 126(5). After passing the final assessment order, the consumer has to pay the charges or prefer appeal under Section 127 within 30 days.
As such, the Judge was convinced that the provisions contemplated under Section 126 and 127 constitute a complete code in itself and there is remedy of appeal against the final assessment order.
Thus, it was held that the Permanent Lok Adalat is not competent to maintain an application under Section 22 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 against the final order passed under Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act, as observed in Metaldyne Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat was found to be not sustainable and the petition was allowed However, it was clarified that the respondent was at liberty to prefer appeal as per Section 127 before the competent authority.
Case Title: Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Agrawal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 84