Gujarat High Court
Deputy Engineer (O & M) vs Jagrut Nagrik Sangh & 2 on 14 February, 2014
Author: K.S. Jhaveri
Bench: K.S. Jhaveri, A.G. Uraizee
C/LPA/1780/2009 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1780 of 2009
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5754 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made
thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
DEPUTY ENGINEER (O & M)....Appellant(s)
Versus
JAGRUT NAGRIK SANGH & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS LILU K BHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SANDIP C SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G. URAIZEE
Date : 14/02/2014
Page 1 of 3
C/LPA/1780/2009 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI) The issue raised in this appeal is fairly covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Anis Ahmad [AIR 2013 SC 2766]. The Supreme Court while deciding the issue has held as follows:
"47. In view of the observation made above, we hold that: (i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of "service" as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or "complaint"as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(ii) A "complaint" against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.
(iii) The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to "unfair trade practice" or a "restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider"; or "if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service"; or "hazardous service"; or "the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law".
We are, therefore, of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be accepted as the consumer forum has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the order dated 11 th December 2008 passed by the Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal, Vadodara, in Consumer Complaint No. 2157 of 2004 as well as the order dated 1st July 2009 of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application 5754 of Page 2 of 3 C/LPA/1780/2009 JUDGMENT 2009 are quashed and set aside. However, since the present respondent was prosecuting remedy before wrong forum, he approached the Consumer Forum. Therefore, the period from the date of filing of the complaint in Consumer Forum to 14th February 2014 shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of delay by the competent authority since the respondent approached a wrong forum under misconception of law. The respondent is granted thirty two days' time to approach the competent authority, and accordingly, the respondent will approach the competent authority on or before 18 th March 2014. The appellant shall not disconnect the electricity connection of the respondent upto midnight of 18th March 2014. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) (A.G. URAIZEE, J.) sndevu Page 3 of 3