Disposed

Ms. Priya Mehta v. Bses Rajdhani Power Limited

Delhi HC22 Aug 2024W.P.(C)/1286/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ directing installation of an electricity connection without first approaching the statutory grievance forum. Relying on prior decisions including Ram Kishan and the Supreme Court in MERC v. Reliance Energy, the Court held the statutory forum under Section 42(5) must first be approached and disposed of the petition with rights reserved.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ms. Priya Mehta Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~67

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1286/2024 MS. PRIYA MEHTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M. Hassibuddin, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rishabh Raj Jain, Mr. Sharique Hussain, Advs.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R

¶8

% 22.08.2024

¶9

The petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

¶10

“a. Direct the respondent to allot/install the Electricity Connection in the name of Petitioner over the Flat situated on the First Floor, Front to left side portion of Property Bearing No.154-D, Khasra No.548/13, Sheikh Sarai Village, New Delhi-110017, in the interest of justice.”

¶11

It appears that the petitioner has directly approached this Court without first taking recourse to the statutory remedy available under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶12

This Court, in W.P.(C) No.10079 of 2024 titled as Amrit Singh v.

¶13

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (BRPL) & Anr., has held as under:-

¶14

“8. At this juncture, it is significant to take note of the decision passed by this Court in the case of Ram Kishan v. N.D.P.L. While dealing with a dispute regarding an electricity bill, the Court in paragraph no.10, has recorded a note of caution in entertaining petitions where an alternate statutory remedy exists in the following words:-

¶15

'If this Court entertains writ petition regarding disputes relating to electricity, water, telephones bills, etc. even though there is an alternative remedy provided by the statute before some Forum, this Court will be flooded with lacs and lacs of such writ petitions and will be doing no other work except deciding such writ petitions'.

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2024 at 12:34:23

¶17

9. In paragraph nos.14 to 19 in the case of Ram Kishan (supra) , it has been further held as under:-

¶18

"14. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that disputes regarding the tariff cannot be raised before the Forum or the Ombudsman as they are creatures of the statute. We are of the opinion that while the consumer cannot challenge the validity of the tariff before these bodies, the Forum and Ombudsman can certainly go into the question of interpretation of the tariff. There is a clear distinction between interpretation of a tariff and validity of a tariff.

¶19

15. Some electricity consumers may have the grievance that an exorbitant bill may be pressed against them with the threat of disconnection of electricity supply. We are of the opinion that both the Forum under Section 42(5) as well as Ombudsman under Section 42(6)have inherent powers of passing interlocutory orders pending the decision of the representation before them including interlocutory orders for stay of the bills apart from the specific power under Regulation 9(8) of the Regulations contained in the notification dated 11.3.2004.

¶20

16. As regards the representation before the Ombudsman under Section 42(6), there is a requirement of pre-deposit of 1/3rd of the amount assessed by the Forum in cash or by way of bank draft.

¶21

17. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that this may cause hardship but we are afraid we cannot interfere in this matter as the requirement of such pre-deposit before the Ombudsman amounts to delegated legislation, with which we cannot interfere.

¶22

18. Learned Counsel for the appellant then submitted that there is no mechanism to implement the orders of the Forum under Section 42(5) or Ombudsman under Section 42(6) and he has submitted that in many cases the orders of the Forum and Ombudsman are not complied with by the electricity department. This has been denied by the learned Counsel for the respondent, but in any case we clarify that it is implicit in Sections 42(5) and 42(6) that the orders of the Forum and Ombudsman have to be complied with by the parties (including the consumer as well as the electricity department) unless the said order has been stayed or set aside by this Court or the Supreme Court.

¶23

19. The appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to approach the Forum under Section 42(5) and the Ombudsman under Section 42(6), if he is aggrieved by the order of the Forum. We also make it clear that the Forum as well as Ombudsman can devise their own procedures and mechanisms for adjudication of the complaints of the consumers. However, we make it clear that although there is no specific provisions about the procedures to be followed by the

¶24

¶25

Forum and Ombudsman, these authorities must follow the rules of the natural justice."

¶26

13. In the case of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Reliance Energy Ltd. , the Supreme Court held that since the Act of 2003 has created CGRF, all the individual grievances of consumers have to be raised before such forum only. While affirming the decision passed by this Court in Suresh Jindal v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors. and Dheeraj Singh v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. , wherein, it was held that the CGRF and the Ombudsman has the authority to pass an interim order as well, the Supreme Court further held that Sections 42(5) and 42(6) provide a complete machinery for redressal of grievances of the consumers. The Supreme Court in the said case remitted the matter back to the CGRF for adjudication on merits. The relevant paragraphs of the decision in Reliance Energy (supra) are extracted as under:-

¶27

“33. As per the aforesaid provision, if any grievance is made by a consumer, then they have a remedy under Section 42(5) of the Act and according to sub-section (5) every distribution licensee has to appoint a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers. In exercise of this power the State has already framed the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2003 Regulations”) and created Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman. Under these 2003 Regulations a proper forum for redressal of the grievances of individual consumers has been created by the Commission. Therefore, now by virtue of sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Act, all the individual grievances of consumers have to be raised before this forum only. In the face of this statutory provision we fail to understand how could the Commission acquire jurisdiction to decide the matter when a forum has been created under the Act for this purpose. The matter should have been left to the said forum. This question has already been considered and decided by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Suresh Jindal v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. [(2006) 132 DLT 339 (DB)] and Dheeraj Singh v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. [Ed. : (2006) 127 DLT 525 (DB)] and we approve of these decisions. It has been held in these decisions that the forum and ombudsman have power to grant interim orders. Thus a complete machinery has been provided in Sections 42(5) and 42(6) for redressal of grievances of individual consumers. Hence wherever a forum/ombudsman have been created the consumers can only resort to these bodies for redressal of their grievances. Therefore, not much is required to be discussed on this issue. As

¶28

¶29

the aforesaid two decisions correctly lay down the law when an individual consumer has a grievance he can approach the forum created under sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Act.

¶30

34. In this connection, we may also refer to Section 86 of the Act which lays down the functions of the State Commission. Sub-section (1)(f) of the said section lays down the adjudicatory function of the State Commission which does not encompass within its domain complaints of individual consumers. It only provides that the Commission can adjudicate upon the disputes between the licensees and generating companies and to refer any such dispute for arbitration. This does not include in it an individual consumer. The proper forum for that is Section 42(5) and thereafter Section 42(6) read with the Regulations of 2003 as referred to hereinabove.”

¶31

14. Notably, the decision of this Court in the cases of Abhijit Anand v. Chairman Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ashok Yadav v. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited also aid to the similar position of law as has been rendered in the case of Ram Kishan (supra).

¶32

15. It is thus safely discernible from the aforementioned decisions that the submissions which have been made by the petitioner in the instant petition can also be looked into by the concerned authority which is provided under the Act of 2003.

¶33

16. In view of the aforesaid, leaving all contentions open to be raised before the appropriate authority, the Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition and the same is dismissed alongwith pending applications."

¶34

In view of the aforesaid, let the petitioner to take recourse in accordance with the provisions under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶35

Reserving all rights and contentions open, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶36

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶37

AUGUST 22, 2024/KG

¶38

Ms. Priya Mehta v. Bses Rajdhani Power Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ms. Priya Mehta v. Bses Rajdhani Power Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mj Bizcrafts LLP (through Its Partner Sh. Rajender Kumar) Vs Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate (through Its Commissioner) & Ors.

Rajesh Adhikari and Ors. Vs Sashastra Seema Bal and Anr.

Kunal Khatumaria Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) and Ors.

Shri Nath Kushwaha & Ors. Vs Braham Swaroop Sharma & Ors.

Prayag Polytech Private Limited & Anr. Vs Canara Bank

Central Government Welfare Housing Organization Cgewho Vs Inder Jit Singh Ahuja

Mohd. Rashid Vs Union of India & Anr.

Anil Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Nitin Kumar Vs Jagat Singh

Kunal Khatumaria Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) and Ors.

Shri Nath Kushwaha & Ors. Vs Braham Swaroop Sharma & Ors.

Zahiruddin Vs Bses Yamuna Power Limited

Shubhada Khosla & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Deepak Vs Union of India and Ors.