A Division Bench dismissed a second writ petition challenging an execution order dated 05.08.2020. The court held that the petition involved the same cause of action as a previously dismissed writ (WRIT - C No. 9614 of 2023), constituting a gross abuse of process of law and lacking merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181252-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29729 of 2023
Petitioner :- M/S Maa Vashanav Dairy Respondent :- Electricity Ombudsman, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Narendra Kumar Tiwari,Ajay Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
"(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing impugned order dated 05.08.2020 passed by respondent No.1 which is passed in derogation of Section 47 of C.P.C. (Annexure-4).
(ii) Issue appropriate writ Commanding respondent No.1 to decide the Execution Application No. C-64/18 afresh."
it was held that the bill/letter issued by licensee was in compliance of the order passed by the Forum and consequently rejected the objection by order dated 05.08.2020, which is impugned in the present writ petition. The Division Bench had considered the matter in detail and observed that while passing the order dated 16.02.2023, the second respondent held that the execution application/objection filed by the petitioner, which was registered as execution case, was rejected after due consideration of all aspects by an order dated 05.08.2020 and, therefore, no good ground is made out to re-examine the controversy and further observed that the order dated 16.02.2023 does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity so as to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction and filing of repeated petition before second respondent even after order dated 05.08.2020 and also before the High Court, amounts to gross abuse of process of law and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. In this backdrop, he submits that inspite of said order, the petitioner again ventured to approach this Court challenging the order dated 05.08.2020. Even though while passing the aforesaid order, the Co-ordinate Bench has not only considered the subsequent order dated 16.02.2023 but also considered the order dated 05.08.2020, which is impugned in the present matter, therefore, the present proceeding is gross abuse of process of law and liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
"The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 16.2.2023 passed by respondent no. 2.
The facts in brief necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (for short 'the Forum') and the same was decided in his favour by order passed in the year 2016 in Case No. 224 of 2016. Thereafter, the licensee installed a check meter and a report was prepared. The petitioner being aggrieved by the fact that the directions issued by the Forum had not been complied with, filed an execution application before respondent no. 2. It was decided by respondent no. 2 by order dated 24.12.2018 and certain directions were issued so as to implement the order passed by the Forum. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh application before respondent no. 2 raising grievances regarding non-implementation of the order of the Forum. Respondent no. 2 after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the bill issued by the licensee was in full compliance of the order passed by the Forum and consequently, rejected the objections by order dated 5.8.2020. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner and it had attained finality. Thereafter, the petitioner once again filed complaint before the Forum and when it was not being decided, he approached this Court in Writ - C No. 6513 of 2022 and succeeded in obtaining a direction dated 15.3.2022 for deciding the complaint/representation within three months. In pursuance thereof, the Forum disposed of the complaint filed by the petitioner observing that respondent no. 2 had in the past passed a detailed order dated 5.8.2022 and in case the petitioner has any further grievance, he can approach the Lokpal,
but no case is made out to entertain fresh complaint/representation once again. The petitioner thereafter filed representation before respondent no. 2 for restoration of the execution application which stood decided by order dated 5.8.2020. It thereafter approached this Court and inter alia sought a direction to the Lokpal to decide his restoration application in Execution Case No. C/64 of 2018. The said writ petition was disposed of on 9.2.2023 after noticing that the petitioner had not removed the defects pointed out in the application by the office of respondent no. 2 and therefore it is open to the petitioner to remove the defects. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 has passed the impugned order, holding that the execution application/objection filed by the petitioner which was registered as an execution case was rejected after due consideration of all aspects by an order dated 5.8.2020 and therefore no good ground is made out to re-examine the controversy.
The view taken by respondent no. 2 does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Filing of repeated petitions before respondent no. 2 even after order dated 5.8.2020 and also before this Court, amounts to gross abuse of the process of law.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-"
Order Date :- 19.9.2023 Sachin
Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition challenging the order dated 05.08.2020 is maintainable given the earlier dismissal in Writ - C No. 9614 of 2023.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/S Maa Vashanav Dairy Vs. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission And 2 OthersExplained¶10
WRIT - C No.- 9614 of 2023
M/S Maa Vashanav Dairy
Electricity Ombudsman, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow
Another
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Prashant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
