Gujarat High Court
Gauri Gopal Sujan vs Paschim Gujarat Viz Company Limited on 22 July, 2019
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
C/SCA/7431/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7431 of 2019
===========================================================
GAURI GOPAL SUJAN
Versus
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIZ COMPANY LIMITED
================================================================
Appearance:
ALPESH D ARYA(8839) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
CHETAN D KARIYA(8819) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 22/07/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking direction for supply of electricity connection forthwith to the petitioner at the premises being Plot No.286, Sector 1/A, Gandhidham-Kutch.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ("the Act" for short) makes it obligatory on the part of the respondent- Electricity Company to supply electricity and grant electric connection within 30 days. The petitioner had accordingly made application on 08.12.2018, which is yet not responded to and the electric connection is also not given. It is submitted that though the petitioner is not Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 23 22:44:25 IST 2019 C/SCA/7431/2019 ORDER in default for any dues and is ready and willing to pay necessary charges for electric connection, still application is not considered. It is submitted that the premises as described hereinabove belong to the husband of the petitioner, who, at the relevant time in the year 2006, permitted one M/s.Aditya Cargo Transport to occupy such premises and that said M/s.Aditya Cargo Transport had received electric connection in its name on the same premises. Thereafter, said M/s.Aditya Cargo Transport had issued two letters to the Electricity Company for shifting the electric meter and disconnecting the supply as the husband of the petitioner planned to demolish and redevelop the plot. It is submitted that thereafter in May 2016, said plot was transferred in the name of the petitioner and new building work was to commence on the premises from the month of October 2016 and was completed in March 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for electric connection and /or restoration of electricity supply on the said premises as she desired to start her own business. As the petitioner was not getting any response and also was not receiving any connection, she made on-line grievance. In this connection, the petitioner came to know that the reason for non-supply is outstanding hill of Rs.3,53,616.72/- due in the name of M/s.Aditya Cargo Transport. Page 2 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 23 22:44:25 IST 2019 C/SCA/7431/2019 ORDER 2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that dues of M/s.Aditya Cargo Transport were on account of slowness of meter and such bill was issued at the relevant time i.e. to say way back in 2004-05 and as the Electricity Company had not complied with provisions of law, said M/s.Aditya Cargo Transport had approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had allowed the application and had ordered that the action be taken for issuing of supplementary bill only after complying with Section 26(6) of the Act. Such order was passed in connection with Complaint Application No.137 of 2004 filed by M/s.Aditya Cargo Transport.
2.2 Learned Advocate further submitted that the Electricity Company though ought to have complied with the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and /or initiate any proceedings under the provisions for recovery of such amount from M/s.Aditya Cargo Transport on account of its dues, it is not supplying electric connection to the petitioner.
3. Learned Advocate for the respondent opposed the petition primarily on the ground of alternative remedy as the Electricity Act, which is a complete Code in itself, provides for two stage remedy to the petitioner. However, the petitioner has not resorted to such remedy. Page 3 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 23 22:44:25 IST 2019 C/SCA/7431/2019 ORDER It is submitted that Sections 42(5) and 42(6) provide for redressal of grievance. It is submitted that learned Advocate has instruction that the order of District Consumer Forum is under challenge. However, at this stage, she is not able to produce any record in this connection.
3.1 It is submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands as it cannot be said that the petitioner has no connection with the premises and M/s.Aditya Cargo Transport, against whom dues are pending. It is submitted that M/s.Aditya Cargo Transport, which used to occupy the premises, was a partnership firm where husband of the petitioner was also a partner.
4. In rejoinder, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that alternative remedy is not available as Section 42 is meant only for consumers. The petitioner is not even accepted as consumer and therefore, cannot resort to alternative remedy of Section
42.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused documents on record. Section 2(15) of the Act defines "consumer" and reads as under:-
"2. (15) "consumer" means any person who is Page 4 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 23 22:44:25 IST 2019 C/SCA/7431/2019 ORDER supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;"
5.1 Section 43 of the Act provides for "Duty to supply on request", where licensee, on an application by the owner or occupier of the premises, give supply of electricity to such premises within one moth after receipt of the application requiring such supply. 5.2 Section 42(6) of the Act reads as under:-
"42. (6) Any consumer, who is aggrieved by non- redressal of his grievances under sub-section (5), may make a representation for the redressal of his grievance to an authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed or designated by the State Commission."
5.3 The aforesaid Section accordingly would provide for a forum for redressal of grievance of the consumer. As seen earlier, definition of consumer would include a person whose premises are, for the time being, connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works Page 5 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 23 22:44:25 IST 2019 C/SCA/7431/2019 ORDER of a licensee. The petitioner is already having on the premises electricity connection which was received in the name of M/s.Aditya Cargo Transport and that the petition is filed to receive re-connection of the said connection and therefore, premises of the petitioner would fall in the definition of consumer to attract Section 42.
6. On merits, it is found that the property in question was purchased by the petitioner's husband in the year 2006. The record of M/s.Aditya Cargo Transport, a partnership firm, discloses that Shri T.V.Sujan, father- in-law of the petitioner is one of the partners. The Court, therefore, finds prima facie connection between the erstwhile occupier of the premises, viz. M/s.Aditya Cargo Transport and the present petitioner who has been subsequently gifted the said premises by her husband and therefore, prima facie attempt to make artificial change in the occupancy of the premises in question.
7. The Apex Court in case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd., reported in (2007) 8 SCC, 381, in para- 33 held as under:-
"33. As per the aforesaid provision, if any grievance is made by a consumer, then they have a remedy under Section 42(5) of the Act and according to sub-section (5) every distribution Page 6 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 23 22:44:25 IST 2019 C/SCA/7431/2019 ORDER licensee has to appoint a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers. In exercise of this power the State has already framed The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "2003 Regulations") and created Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman. Under these 2003 Regulations a proper forum for redressal of the grievances of individual consumers has been created by the Commission. Therefore, now by virtue of sub- section (5) of Section 42 of the Act, all the individual grievances of consumers have to be raised before this forum only. In the face of this statutory provision we fail to understand how could the Commission acquire jurisdiction to decide the matter when a forum has been created under the Act for this purpose. The matter should have been left to the said forum. This question has already been considered and decided by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the cases of Suresh Jindal Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors. reported in 132 (2006) DLT 339 (DB) and Dheeraj Singh Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. and we approve of these decisions. It has been held in these decisions that the Forum and Ombudsman have power to grant interim orders. Thus a complete machinery has been provided in Section 42(5) and 42(6) for redressal of grievances of individual consumers. Hence wherever a Forum/Ombudsman have been created the consumers can only resort to these bodies for redressal of their Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 23 22:44:25 IST 2019 C/SCA/7431/2019 ORDER grievances. Therefore, not much is required to be discussed on this issue. As the aforesaid two decisions correctly lay down the law when an individual consumer has a grievance he can approach the forum created under sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Act."
8. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is not inclined to entertain this petition on the ground of alternative, efficacious remedy being available. No case is made out. The petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) SHITOLE Page 8 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 23 22:44:25 IST 2019