Delhi High Court - Orders
Bses Yamuna Power Ltd vs Shama Khan on 14 November, 2024
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15864/2024, CM APPL. 66632/2024, CM APPL.
66633/2024 & CM APPL. 66634/2024
BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr.
Nikhil Sharma, Ms. Simran Kohli
and Ms. S. Akphata, Advocates.
versus
SHAMA KHAN .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 14.11.2024
1. Issue notice. Notice may be served upon the respondent by all permissible modes, including through learned counsel who appeared on her behalf before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum ["CGRF"].
2. The petitioner, which is a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 ["the Act'], has approached this court against orders dated 06.06.2024 and 25.07.2024 passed by the CGRF on the complaint of the respondent, as also against an order dated 10.09.2024 issued by the Electricity Ombudsman.
3. The proceedings before the CGRF were initiated by the respondent by e-mail dated 15.11.2023, by which she sought shifting of a feeder/junction box of the petitioner, located outside her residence. By the impugned order dated 06.06.2024, the CGRF noted that the petitioner herein was willing to relocate the junction box for which the respondent W.P.(C) 15864/2024 Page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/11/2024 at 00:00:08 had also made the necessary payment. However, a grievance was then raised that the dimensions of the proposed box were larger than the dimensions of the original box. The CGRF was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, and directed the petitioner to shift the junction box already installed, to the new location.
4. The petitioner sought review of the order, which was declined by the CGRF by order dated 25.07.2024.
5. The respondent has now carried the matter to the Ombudsman, who has issued the impugned letter dated 10.09.2024 to the petitioner, calling upon it respond to the respondent's representation.
6. At the outset, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the entire issue raised before the CGRF was outside its jurisdiction. He draws my attention to Section 42(5) of the Act read with the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission ["DERC"] (Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2018, which provide that the jurisdiction of the CGRF is to entertain grievances with respect to services provided by the distribution licensee. Mr. Sethi submits that, in the present case, the grievance is not regarding any services provided by the petitioner to the respondent but, in fact, with regard to the licensee's works, installed on public land, outside the respondent's premises. As such, it falls under the jurisdiction of the DERC under Section 67(3) and 67(4) of the Act.
7. Mr. Sethi further submits that the Ombudsman has also erroneously exercised jurisdiction in proceedings which are tantamount to execution of the order of the CGRF, whereas no such jurisdiction is vested in the Ombudsman under Section 42(6) of the Act only provides W.P.(C) 15864/2024 Page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/11/2024 at 00:00:08 for redressal by the Ombudsman in the event the consumer's grievances remain unredressed by the CGRF.
8. Mr. Sethi also cites various orders of this Court, annexed to the writ petition as Annexures P-31 to P-38, which deal with the jurisdiction of the CGRF.
9. Factually, Mr. Sethi submits that, the petitioner was in fact agreeable to the request of the respondent for shifting of the feeder/junction box, and is still willing to relocate the junction box; however, the junction box now used by the petitioner is of slightly larger dimensions than the earlier feeder/junction box.
10. The jurisdictional objections raised by Mr. Sethi require further examination and are prima facie merited. The petitioner is directed to file its response before the Ombudsman within a period of 15 days from today raising the aforesaid objections also, but the Ombudsman is directed to defer further proceedings until after the next date of hearing before this Court.
11. If any further interim orders are required, the same may be considered on the next date of hearing, after the respondent has been served notice.
12. The respondent may file a counter affidavit within four weeks after service. Rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
13. List on 17.03.2025.
PRATEEK JALAN, J NOVEMBER 14, 2024/MR/AL/ W.P.(C) 15864/2024 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/11/2024 at 00:00:08