Nirmla Devi Alias Bimla and Another Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through Its Managing Director and Others

Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article s 226/227 o f the Constitution of India, a c hallenge is thrown to the orde r dated 07. 0 3.2025 (Annexure P-11), as pa s sed by Electricity Ombudsman , Haryana, whereby, the order dated 3 0 .08.2024 (Annexure P-10), a s passed b y the Consumer Grievance Re d ressal Forum (CGRF), was se t aside.

¶16

The grievance sketched i n the instant petition, by th e petitione r s, is that a well reaso n ed order dated 30.08.202 4 (Annexu r e P-10), as passed by the CGRF, was set aside by the Electricit y Ombuds m an, without giving cogent reas o ns for the same. The main issu e which w a s raised by the petitioners throu g h the instant petition is that th e

¶17

DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P & H High Court, Chandigarh

¶18

124 CWP-13421-2025

¶19

-2-

¶20

Officer, w ho passed the order as Chair p erson, CGRF, Panchkula, ha d also pass e d the order as Presiding Offi c er, Ombudsman, therefore, th e impugne d order is not sustainable, in the eyes of law, as the same perso n cannot a c t as an Appellate Authority, to his own order. Before gaugin g the legal i ty of the impugned order on t h e anvil of the submissions, a s made by t he learned counsel for the peti t ioners, and for apt adjudicatio n of the dis p ute, it would be necessary to refer to the facts. FACTUAL MATRIX

¶21

The petitioners filed a c o mplaint before the Consume r Grievanc e Redressal Forum, of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Niga m Limited ( CGRF), with a request to ch a nge the name of the tubewel l connecti o n in the name of his mother. The case as set up by th e petitione r s before the CGRF is that, in t h e year 2011, their mother Smt . Nirmala D evi alias Bimla, had purchas e d 21 kanal 19 marla of land , situated i n village Garhi Bhalaur, Te h sil Bhapoli, District Panipat , Haryana, from one Rajinder son of Ka n var Bhan. She also purchase d tubewell connection No.T2-62, which w as already installed in the sai d land. By r eferring to the details of other share purchased by petitioner’ s mother, i t was pleaded before the authority (supra), that approximatel y 90% sha r e in the joint khewat was purc h ased. The tubewell connectio n T2-62 w a s assigned a new number AP-1 0 /1024X. It was further allege d that resp o ndent No.5, in collusion with the officials of the distributio n licensee, h as got the said connection tra n sferred in his name by showin g it to be installed in Khatauni No.92, Khasra No.39/27. The foru m (supra), after considering the s u bmissions made by th e

¶22

DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P & H High Court, Chandigarh

¶23

124 CWP-13421-2025

¶24

-3-

¶25

petitione r s/complainants, found merits in the complaint, and finall y passed a d irection, upon the Sub Divisio n al Officer concerned, to initiat e further a c tion with regard to the cha n ge of name of the tubewel l connecti o n in the name of petitioner’s m other, as per standing norms . The relevant portion is extracted hereinaf t er:-

¶26

“After examining the reply of the Respondent SDO, the record available o n the file an hearing both th e parties, the Forum h as observed that since cogen t proof of registry ha s been given in which it ha s specifically been men t ioned that the land along wit h tubewell connection ( b earing Old Account No.T-2-62 ) and now New Accoun t No.AP-10-1024X was also sol d in the name of Smt. N irmala Devi W/o Sh. Vijay Pa l by seller Sh. Rajinder Singh S/o Sh. Kanwarbhan S/ o Sh. Jage Ram. Mo r eover, s per Halka Kanung o Report submitted on 0 3.06.2023 and further certifie d on 18.07.2024 also s peaks volume that in Khasr a NO.39/8/1/1, the tubewell premises/electricit y connection is existin g in Khasra NO.39/8/1/1, West - mid side and 39/27 E a st-mid side, the tubewell bore i s situated. So the pl e ading/contention made by th e complainant has bee n found genuine. So the Foru m directs SDO/Respon d ent to initiate further actio n regarding change of tubewell connection in favour o f the complainant as pe r sanding norms of the Nigam. The Forum observed that even after having know n hard facts about th e site report as well as othe r cogent proof submitt e d by the complainant, matte r has been lingered on b y the concerned officials due t o which he has been pu t under unnecessary harassment, for which disciplinar y action, as deemed fit, be take n by Xen (OP) Division, UHBVN, Samalkha, against th e

¶27

DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P & H High Court, Chandigarh

¶28

124 CWP-13421-2025

¶29

-4-

¶30

delinquent officer/offi c ial, if any. The Forum direct s Secretary, Corporate CGRF, UHBVN, Panchkula t o endorse the copy of t h e order to Xen. (OP) Division, UHBVN, Samalkha f o r initiating disciplinary actio n against the delinque n t(s) and sending complianc e report of the orders w i thin 21 days time without fail.”

¶31

The aforesaid order caused g rievance to one Randhir Singh , and there f ore, he preferred an appeal be fo re the Electricity Ombudsman , Haryana, vide impugned order dated 0 7 .03.2025 (Annexure P-11), th e Ombuds m an, come to a conclusion that t h e CGRF concerned, has passe d the order without impleading Randhir Singh, as a necessary party, an d even wit h out affording an opportunity o f hearing to him, the order wa s passed, a nd therefore, the said orde r is legally not maintainable . Accordin g ly, the Ombudsman accepted t h e appeal, and had set aside th e order, as passed by the CGRF concerne d , and remanded the lis back t o the Corp o rate Forum, to re-examine the i ssue afresh, after affording du e opportun i ty of hearing to both the partie s concerned. And, the said orde r has been p ut to legal scrutiny before this C ourt, by the petitioner. SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

¶32

Learned counsel for the pe t itioners, while referring to th e enquiry r e port, submits that the said report was duly considered by th e CGRF, i n its order dated 30.08.2024, and this clearly reflects tha t responde n t No.5, in connivance wit h the official respondents o f distributi o n licensee, got illegally transf e rred the electricity connection , in questi o n. He further submits that wh e n the order was passed by th e CGRF, it was presided over by Mr. R.K. K hanna, as Chairperson, CGRF ,

¶33

DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P & H High Court, Chandigarh

¶34

124 CWP-13421-2025

¶35

-5-

¶36

Panchkul a , and whereas, when the ap p eal was preferred by Randhi r Singh, th e same very officer, was subs e quently appointed as Presidin g Officer, E lectricity Ombudsman, Hary a na, who while allowing th e appeal, h a d set-aside his own order as p assed by him, as Chairperson , CGRF, t h erefore, the said order is not ma i ntainable in the eyes of law. ANALYSIS

¶37

Considering the submission s as made by the learned counse l for the p e titioners, and after perusing t h e material available on record , which c l early reflects that Mr. Rak e sh Kumar Khanna, was th e Chairper s on, CGRF, when the order dat e d 30.08.2024 was passed, an d when he b ecame the Presiding Officer, E l ectricity Ombudsman, Haryana , he while e ntertaining the said appeal, has decided the validity and legalit y of his o w n order, and therefore, the sa m e is totally against law. Thi s settled p r oposition of law, that a pers o n cannot act as an Appellat e Authorit y , to his own order, therefor e , the order as passed by th e Ombuds m an, Haryana is per se illegal, a nd requires interference by thi s Court.

¶38

DECISION

¶39

This Court, further examine d the order dated 30.08.2024, a s passed b y the Chairperson, CGRF, and i s of the considered opinion tha t the said o rder, is not maintainable, as th e same has been passed withou t impleadi n g, and without affording a du e opportunity of hearing to th e affected p arties, i.e. respondent No.5. T h erefore, the said order being i n violation of principles of natural justic e , is not maintainable, and th e same als o requires interference by this C o urt. Though, the said order ha s

¶40

DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P & H High Court, Chandigarh

¶41

124 CWP-13421-2025

¶42

-6-

¶43

not been challenged before this Court, y e t, while exercising the inheren t jurisdicti o n of this Court, the order as p assed by the CGRF is also set aside . F u rthermore, this Court deems i t apt to pass a mandamus , upo n the CGR F concerned, to pass a fresh or d er after impleading responden t No.5, as a necessary parties, after afford i ng a due opportunity of hearin g to the aff e cted parties concerned, expedit i ously.

¶44

Consequently, the instant wr i t petition i s disposed of .

¶45

12^th May, 2025 ( KULDEEP TIWARI ) ‘deepak’ JUDGE W h ether speaking/reasoned: Yes No W h ether Reportable: Yes No

¶46

DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P & H High Court, Chandigarh

Nirmla Devi Alias Bimla and Another v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through Its Managing Director and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmla Devi Alias Bimla and Another v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through Its Managing Director and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurminder Pal Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Bikram Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Deepa Kumari Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mukesh Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ranjit Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Pawan Kumar Vs the Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Union of India and Others