Madras High Court
The Project Director vs The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum ... on 23 February, 2017
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.02.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.(MD)No.10159 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 The Project Director, Zirconium Complex, (Formerly known as M/s. New Zirconium Oxide and Sponge Project), Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, Palayakayal ? 628 152. ... Petitioner Vs. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum at Thoothukudi, Rep. by its Chairman-cum-Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Circle, Thoothukudi. ... Respondent PRAYER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the proceedings of the Respondent in f.vz;: nk/bgh/J}kpgt/cbrbgh/t/cbgh/Mh;,rp/ nfh.fl;L/m.vz;: 1390/2010 ehs;: 19.7.2010, quash the same and further to direct the Respondent to transfer the complaint filed by the Petitioner dated 30.06.2010 to be heard and decide by any other similar forum constituted in any other districts. !For Petitioner :Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondent :Mr.A.U.Ramanathan :ORDER
The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the proceedings of the Respondent in f.vz;: nk/bgh/ J}kpgt/cbrbgh/t/cbgh/Mh;,rp/nfh.fl;L/m.vz;: 1390/2010 ehs;:
19.7.2010, quash the same and further direct the Respondent to transfer the complaint filed by the Petitioner dated 30.06.2010, to be heard and decided by any other similar forum constituted in any other districts.
2.The petitioner being part of Atomic Energy Department, Government of India having a body at Pazhayakayal, Tuticorin District. In respect of lesser consumption of energy, some penalty had been awarded by the respondent through his order dated 22.10.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum at Thoothukudi. The said forum has issued a notice for hearing by its proceedings dated 19.07.2010. In this regard, the grievance of the petitioner would be that the very same authority passed the order levying penalty for the alleged lesser use of energy by his order dated 22.10.2009, heading the appellate forum, which is otherwise called the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum at Thoothukudi and therefore, in this regard, the petitioner's grievance is that the very same official or authority cannot sit upon to decide the complaint made by the petitioner against the order passed by the very same authority and therefore, on that score alone the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer.
3.Heard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He would submit that on the basis of the age old principle of law that ?no one can sit as Judge for his own cause?, the respondent cannot hear the complaint filed against the order passed by the very same authority, namely, the Superintending Engineer, Thoothukudi ? 2. Therefore, if the hearing as has been communicated through notice dated 19.07.2010 is permitted to be taken up by the very same authority, then it would cause great prejudice to the petitioner, which is part of Atomic Energy Department, Government of India.
4.Heard Mr.A.U.Ramanathan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
5.It is not in dispute that the earlier order dated 22.10.2009, was passed by the Superintending Engineer, Thoothukudi Electricity Distribution Circle, Thoothukudi ? 2 and against the said order, the present complaint/appeal had been filed by the petitioner, which is supposed to be heard by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum to decide the issue. This arrangement of continuing the very same authority to decide the grievance of the consumer as against the order passed by the very same authority is totally against the fundamental principles of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with such move of the respondent for hearing the complaint made by the petitioner to redress the grievance of petitioner.
6.In view of the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The impugned notice dated 19.07.2010 is quashed, since it has been issued by the very same authority by whom the order was already passed on 22.10.2009, against which the petitioner has filed appeal before the respondent authority.
(ii) The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Chennai is hereby directed to transfer the complaint of the petitioner in proceedings f.vz;:
nk/bgh/ J}kpgt/cbrbgh/t/cbgh/Mh;,rp/nfh.fl;L/m.vz;: 1390/2010 dated 19.07.2010, on the file of the respondent to any other District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the respondent Department, after giving notice to the petitioner and on transferring the complaint of the petitioner as directed above, the said forum to which it is transferred shall take up the matter and decide the same as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of the said reference made by the Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, after giving due notice to the petitioner intimating the date of hearing.
(iii) Till the aforesaid reference is completed, the demand made, which is impugned before the respondent Forum shall be kept in abeyance. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Chennai.
2.The Chairman-cum-Superintending Engineer, Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum at Thoothukudi, Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Circle, Thoothukudi..