Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Jagdamba Oil Industries ... vs Madhya Pradesh Vidhut Niyamak Aayog on 3 July, 2018
1 WP No.3386/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.3386/2017
M/s. Jagadamba Oil Industries Vs. Electricity Ombudsman,
MPERC
Indore, Dated: 03.07.2018
Shri A.S.Garg, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Ashish Vyas, learned counsel for respondent.
Heard.
By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Ombudsman dated 17/1/2017 whereby the Ombudsman has adjourned the pending proceedings awaiting the decision of the Court.
The brief facts are that there was a dispute in respect of the electricity consumption and the demand raised which was taken to the Electricity Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum by the petitioner and the Forum by order dated 23/4/2016 finding that the tampering of the meter was done had rejected the complaint. Thereafter the petitioner had approached the Ombudsman under the provisions of the MPERC (Establishment of Forum and Electricity Ombudsman for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers) Regulations 2009. Undisputedly, the proceedings were taken up before the criminal court also u/S.135 of the Electricity Act 2003 and before the special court at Barwaha the case No.3/2016 is pending and when this fact came to the knowledge of the Ombudsman, the impugned order dated 17/1/2017 has been passed adjourning the proceeding to await the decision of the special court.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that neither 2 WP No.3386/2017 the petitioner nor the respondent had made any request for adjournment of the proceedings, yet the Ombudsman has suo-motu adjourned the proceedings.
As against this, learned counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the proceedings have been taken up by the Ombudsman in accordance with Regulations of 2009. The Regulations 4.11 (a) puts a bar for entertaining any representation in respect of a matter where the proceedings before the Commission, specified authority etc are pending. Regulations 4.11(a) reads as under:-
"(a) May receive and consider all representations filed by the Complainant for nonredressal of the grievance by the Forum under Sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Act. Notwithstanding the above the Ombudsman shall not entertain any representation in regard to the matters which are subject matters of existing or proposed proceedings before the Commission or before any other authority including those under part X, XI, XII, XIV, XV and XVI of the Act."
The proceedings u/S.135 of the Electricity Act falls under Part XIV of the Act, therefore, these proceedings are covered by the bar created Regulation 4.11(a). Hence, no error has been committed by the Ombudsman in adjourning the proceedings awaiting the decision of the special court. If the statute or the regulation itself puts a bar, then the Ombudsman is justified in suo motu passing the order of such a nature which is under challenge.
In these circumstances, no error is found in the 3 WP No.3386/2017 impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge vm Digitally signed by Varghese Mathew Date: 2018.07.04 16:32:16 +05'30'