Allahabad High Court
M/S Uflex Limited Thru. Authorized ... vs Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam ... on 22 March, 2023
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 22 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1388 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Uflex Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Anupam Chaturvedi Respondent :- Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Thru. M.D., Electricity Urban Division-1, Noida Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivam Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Amarjeet Singh Rakhra Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya and Mr. Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel for opposite party.
2. Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to Ombudsman, Electricity, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to consider and decide petition under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 in the matter of M/s Uflex Limited v. Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited and to grant stay on demand notice dated 06.12.2018. Further prayer for issuance of a direction restraining opposite parties from taking any steps for recovery of the amount indicated for the period 27.05.2015 to 31.10.2015 till the dispute is subjudice before the aforesaid court has also been sought.
3. At the very outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for opposite party regarding maintainability of petition at Lucknow in view of fact that the prayer as made in the petition cannot be granted since office of Ombudsman at Lucknow is vacant and furthermore that proceedings initiated by petitioner are pending before Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum(CGRF) at Meerut for which purpose petition would be maintainable before this Court only at Allahabad and not at Lucknow. It is further submitted that even otherwise demand notice dated 06.12.2018 indicated in prayer clause of petition has also been issued at NOIDA, for which purpose also petition would not be maintainable at Lucknow since not even part cause of action accrues to petitioner within jurisdiction of this Court at Lucknow.
4. In response, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the prayer as made in petition invokes statutory duty of Ombudsman in terms of Electricity Act, 2003 and since the said statutory authority is stationed at Lucknow, part cause of action necessarily accrues to petitioner within territorial jurisdiction of this Court at Lucknow. It is submitted that earlier petition bearing Writ - C No.41256 of 2018 was filed by petitioner before this Court at Allahabad which was disposed of vide order dated 17.12.2018 issuing a direction that petitioner should file an appropriate Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal; in pursuance of which Appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal, which in turn by means of order dated 03.03.2023 relegated petitioner to CGRF where proceedings are pending consideration along with an application for interim relief.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Forum vide order dated 14.03.2023 has issued notice to respondent while fixing 29.03.2023 for filing of written statement. However, it is submitted that quorum in CGRF itself is incomplete since there is no Chairperson at present and therefore despite filing of written statement, no further proceedings can be held even for decision on the application for interim relief due to which petitioner has been left remedy-less and therefore present petition is the only option particularly since Appeal before Ombudsmanwas filed, which office is also vacant and therefore in view of prayer being sought, the present petition is maintainable before this Court at Lucknow particularly since a statutory remedy has been availed of and vacancy of statutory office would be irrelevant in such circumstance.
6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is evident that as indicated herein above and due to passing of orders by this Court as well as the appellate authority, an Appeal/Application has been filed before the CGRF, Meerut in which vide order dated 14.03.2023, written statement is required to be filed on the next date fixed, i.e. 229.03.2023. The order under challenge in aforesaid proceedings pertained to order dated 06.12.2018 which has been issued by the Executive Engineer, NOIDA. As such, it is evident that not only the proceedings of CGRF but even the order dated 06.12.2018 is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court at Lucknow.
7. It is only the direction being sought to Ombudsman whereby petition can be said to be maintainable at Lucknow in view of part cause of action having arisen in favour of petitioner due to statutory provisions of Electricity Act, 2003.
8. With regard to aforesaid as well, it is admitted that the office of Ombudsman at Lucknow currently is vacant due to superannuation of the earlier occupant of office with no new appointment having been made. As such despite a statutory remedy being available to petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and petitioner having exercised that statutory remedy, no relief as prayed in the petition can be granted due to admitted vacancy in office of Ombudsman.
9. Since no direction can be issued to the Ombudsman in view of aforesaid vacancy, the only remedy available to petitioner would be to file an appropriate petition either under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution of India against the order impugned before the CGRF and that too only in the event that quorum in the CGRF is incomplete due to which application for interim relief cannot be adjudicated upon.
10. From a reading of order dated 14.03.2023 passed by CGRF, it does not appear that quorum is incomplete. However, learned counsel for petitioner has made a specific averment that quorum of CGRF is incomplete since office of Chair person is vacant. Nonetheless since no direction can be issued to Ombudsman at Lucknow and the relief sought by petitioner as in the prayer clause of petition is only against authorities either at Meerut or at NOIDA, in the considered opinion of this Court, no part cause of action arises to petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court at Lucknow until and unless an Ombudsman is appointed.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion, the petition being beyond territorial jurisdiction of this Court is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.3.2023 kvg/-