Kerala High Court
The Assistatn Engineer vs The Managing Partner on 29 July, 2024
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 30547 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:
1 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION,
KOTTARAKKARA EAST.
2 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION,
KOTTARAKKARA EAST.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB
RIJI RAJENDRAN
SRI.V.V.BINU, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANAGING PARTNER
SARATHY AUTO CARS, RAJESH SOMANATHAN, LOWER KARIKKOM,
AIPPANNOOR MURI, MELILA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 115.
2 VARGHESE KURAKKARAN.P.M.
S/O.KURAKKARAN MATHEW, AIPPANNOOR MURI, MELILA VILLAGE,
KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 115.
3 THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADV SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.07.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 30547 OF 2016
2
"C.R"
JUDGMENT
The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) has come up with the present writ petition, questioning the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat in entertaining a dispute in respect of a provisional assessment of electricity charges.
2. The facts for the disposal of the present writ petition are as follows:
Respondents 1 and 2 are the consumers of the petitioner. Based on Ext.P1 site mahazar, the Assessing Officer issued a provisional bill to the tune of Rs.2,05,938/- in terms of provisions contained under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The said provisional bill was challenged by the 1 st respondent before the 3rd respondent - Permanent Lok Adalat, constituted under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) by filing O.P.No.122 of 2014, Ext.P3.
3. According to the 1st respondent, various electrical gadgets were not connected at the time of inspection and hence, the calculation made was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners appeared and filed their objection, contending mainly that the Permanent Lok Adalat does not have the jurisdiction to entertain WP(C) NO. 30547 OF 2016 3 Ext.P3 complaint.
4. The 3rd respondent - the Permanent Lok Adalat, however, overruled the said objection and proceeded to consider the case on merits and passed Ext.P6 award. Thus, the petitioner - KSEB, aggrieved by the said award, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. I have heard Sri.Riji Rajendran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner - KSEB and learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners submitted that provisions contained under Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act, which is a complete code by itself, provide the mechanism for redressal of the grievances of the consumer. According to the learned Standing Counsel, in terms of the provisions contained under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. Therefore, when the Statute ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, necessarily the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot entertain the application under Section 22C of the Act for considering the dispute raised by respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the provisional assessment bill. He further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Executive Engineer & anr. v. M/s.Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (Civil Appeal No.8859 of 2011) to contend for the proposition WP(C) NO. 30547 OF 2016 4 that the Electricity Act is a complete code by itself and therefore, the consumer will have to necessarily invoke the provisions of the Electricity Act for redressal of the grievances. He further relied on the judgment dated 28.03.2024 of the Orissa High Court in Executive Engineer, (Electrical) South v. Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Ganjam (W.P(C)No.6962 of 2015) to contend for the proposition that the Permanent Lok Adalat is not competent to maintain an application under Section 22 of the Act against the redressal of the grievances under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra), the learned Standing Counsel further pointed out that the Supreme Court has also clarified the aforesaid provisions.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would contend that their application before the Permanent Lok Adalat was perfectly maintainable. He would also rely on the definition of 'Public Utility Service' as defined under the provisions of the Act, to contend for the proposition that the application filed before the 3rd respondent was perfectly maintainable. Alternatively, it is also contended that in case this Court finds that the 3rd respondent does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, respondents 1 and 2 be given liberty to object to the provisional assessment bill since the complaint was WP(C) NO. 30547 OF 2016 5 entertained and decided in their favour by the Permanent Lok Adalat and challenge against the said award is pending before this Court from 09.09.2016 onwards.
8. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar.
9. Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 reads as under:
"22C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat.--
(1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute:
PROVIDED that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law:
PROVIDED FURTHER that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees:
PROVIDED ALSO that the Central Government may, by notification, increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with the Central Authority.
(2) After an application is made under sub-
section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction WP(C) NO. 30547 OF 2016 6 of any court in the same dispute.
(3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-section (1), it--
(a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a written statement, stating therein the facts and nature of dispute under the application, points or issues in such dispute and grounds relied in support of, or in opposition to, such points or issues, as the case may be, and such party may supplement such statement with any document and other evidence which such party deems appropriate in proof of such facts and grounds and shall send a copy of such statement together with a copy of such document and other evidence, if any, to each of the parties to the application;
(b) may require any party to the application to file additional statement before it at any stage of the conciliation proceedings;
(c) shall communicate any document or statement received by it from any party to the application to the other party, to enable such other party to present reply thereto.
(4) When statement, additional statement and reply, if any, have been filed under sub- section (3), to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties to the application in such manner as it thinks appropriate taking into account the circumstances of the dispute.
(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall,
WP(C) NO. 30547 OF 2016
7
during conduct of conciliation proceedings
under sub-section (4), assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial manner.
(6) It shall be the duty of the every party to the application to co-operate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related documents before it.
(7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned.
(8) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute."
10. The point of dispute as raised by the petitioners appears to be on the power of the Permanent Lok Adalat under WP(C) NO. 30547 OF 2016 8 Sub section (8) of Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. No doubt, a reading of the aforementioned provision gives an impression that the Permanent Lok Adalat has got the jurisdiction to decide the case on merits if the conciliation proceedings fails. However, this Court is called upon to decide the impact of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on the provisions of Legal Service Authority Act, 1987.
11. The Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted by the Parliament on 26th May 2003. A reading of the Preamble of the Act reveals that it is intended to consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to development of electricity industry, promoting competition therein, protecting interest of consumers and supply of electricity to all areas, rationalisation of electricity tariff, ensuring transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies, constitution of Central Electricity Authority, Regulatory Commissions and establishment of Appellate Tribunal and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Thus the Electricity Act no doubt is complete code by itself.
12. It is pertinent to note that in respect of the assessments made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, the Act itself WP(C) NO. 30547 OF 2016 9 provides a complete mechanism for redressal of the grievances. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in terms of the provision contained under Section 145 of the Electricity Act. Section 145 of the Electricity Act, reads as under:
"Section 145. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction - No Civil Court shall have
jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act."
13. Can it be said that despite the presence of Section 145 under the Electricity Act 2003, the Permanent Lok Adalat continues to hold Jurisdiction on the matters covered by the Electricity Act, 2003. Obviously, the answer is "No". As stated above, the Electricity Act, 2003 being a complete code by itself, the provisions of which cannot be bypassed by a consumer by resorting to the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. In this context, this Court has to bear in mind two cardinal WP(C) NO. 30547 OF 2016 10 principles; A) The jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and B) The Permanent Lok Adalat does not have power to adjudicate the issue on merits.
14. The decision of the Supreme Court in M/s.Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra) is the authority for the proposition that the Electricy Act itself is a complete Code. Therefore, the question to be considered by this Court, notwithstanding the statutory mechanism provided under the Electricity Act, is whether the Consumer Court invoked the provisions under Section 22C of the Act. Though the availability of an alternate mechanism may not by itself be an indicative factor for deciding the issue as to whether the Permanent Lok Adalat has got the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute or not, certainly Section 145 of the Electricity Act is a guiding factor. If the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred, then certainly, the Permanent Lok Adalat does not have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 22C of the Act. This Court is in complete agreement with the views expressed by the High Court of Orissa in Executive Engineer, (Electrical) South (supra)
15. There is yet another reason for this Court to hold that the Permanent Lok Adalat does not have the Jurisdiction to entertain the dispute under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities WP(C) NO. 30547 OF 2016 11 Act 1987. The Electricity Act enacted in the year 2003 being a complete code by itself, will certainly prevail over the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987. Therefore, in matters covered by Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is clear that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no Jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
16. On facts, it is seen that the Permanent Lok Adalat had decided the lis between the parties. The Supreme Court of India in L.I.C. of India v. Suresh Kumar [2011 (2) KLT 970 (SC)] held that Permanent Lok Adalat has no power to decide the dispute. However, without noticing the binding precedent, a Division Bench of this Court in Ambika Kumary v. State of Kerala [2011(2) KLT 673] held that the Permanent Lok Adalat has the Jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties. Though normally, the Division Bench decision would be binding on this Court, it is evident that the same was rendered without adverting to the binding precedent of the Supreme Court and hence, has to be construed as rendered "per incuriam". Further, this Court is guided by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Fiber Boards Private Limited, Bangalore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [(2015)10 SCC 333], wherein it was held that a decision rendered without adverting to a prior binding precedent is of no precedential WP(C) NO. 30547 OF 2016 12 value and is "per incuriam". Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Exhibit P6 Award is thus set aside. However, since this Court has found that the 3 rd respondent - Permanent Lok Adalat does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, certainly respondents 1 and 2 should be given liberty to object to the provisional assessment bill issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Accordingly, liberty is granted to respondents 1 and 2 to file an appropriate objection against the provisional assessment bill issued by the petitioners. Respondents 1 and 2 will be at liberty to file their objection, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Once the objection is received, the competent Authority will consider the same in accordance with law, after hearing respondents 1 and 2 as well. Respondents will be free to work out their grievances in terms of the provisions contained under the Electricity Act, 2003.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S. JUDGE rp WP(C) NO. 30547 OF 2016 13 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30547/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 19.02.2014 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL BILL DATED 20.02.2014 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 28.06.2016 PASSED IN O.P. NO.122/2014 BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.