Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Hotel Urvashi vs Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. And ... on 8 July, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 UTTARAKHAND 141, AIRONLINE 2020 UTR 221
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, Alok Kumar Verma
RESERVED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 959 of 2019
M/S Hotel Urvashi .............Appellant
Vs.
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. and another
...........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Reserved on: 08.01.2020 Delivered on: 08.07.2020 Per: Alok Kumar Verma, J.
The controversy before us is, whether the present appeal is maintainable?
2. This intra-court appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 08.05.2019, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1463 of 2011 Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. M/S Hotel Urvashi, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned order, in writ petition, passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as, "CGRF") on 23.07.2010 in Complaint Case No. 64 of 2009 M/S Hotel Urvashi, 494 Civil Lines, Roorkee Vs. Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division (Urban) UPCL, Roorkee and the order dated 07.08.2019, by which the Review Application No. 593 of 2019 was dismissed.
3. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this Special Appeal. He contended that in the light of the provisions of Rule 5 of Chapter-VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, applicable to the High Court of Uttarakhand under U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000, a remedy by filing an intra-court appeal is not available to the appellant.
24. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for the appellant refuting the above submission, contended that this intra-court appeal is maintainable.
5. In order to appreciate the issue, which arises at the preliminary stage of this intra-court appeal, a brief reference to the factual background is necessary, which is as follows:-
The respondent-writ petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Registration Act, 1956. The appellant-respondent, in writ petition, was a consumer of the electricity, having connection load of 30 K.W. and connection number UPC10303 was installed in its premises on 26.12.2005. On 23.04.2008, a surprise checking was made in its premises and it was found that the meter was displaying very low current in comparison to actual current and same was shown that some tampering was made in the meter installed in its premises. On 10.04.2009, the old meter, which was installed in its premises, was replaced by the Check Meter No. 23025 to check the accuracy and same was sealed in presence of the representatives of the consumer. On 21.04.2009, the check meter was finalized and old meter was removed and assessment was made as per rule. Thereafter, the assessment was made on the basis of the reading and a demand notice was issued on 16.06.2009 for `46,612=00. The consumer deposited the said amount. On examination, it was found that the old meter was tampered and it was decided that it was theft case. The notice of revised demand assessment bill of Rs. 2,80,834=00 was issued to the consumer and further vide notice dated 31.07.2009, the consumer was directed to deposit the said amount within 30 days. The consumer failed to deposit the same. After that, a tariff was fixed and the consumer was informed vide show cause notice dated 20.09.2009 to deposit a sum of Rs.
14,67,657=00 within a period of seven days. Against the show 3 cause notice and the demand bill of the said amount, the consumer filed a Complaint Case No. 64 of 2009 before the CGRF. The respondent herein filed the preliminary objection against the maintainability of the complaint case. The CGRF passed the impugned order on 23.07.2010 without deciding the preliminary objection and without providing the opportunity to the respondent herein for urging the case on merit. By impugned order dated 23.07.2010, the complaint case was allowed and the bills raised after first assessment bill, which had been paid by the complainant, were quashed. Against the said impugned order dated 23.07.2010, the respondent herein filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1463 of 2011 with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 23.07.2010.
6. The learned Single Judge observed that the complaint case before the CGRF was not tenable. After certain observations, the writ petition was allowed. Hence, this appeal.
7. Before we examine the contentions of both the parties, it is necessary to consider the scope of Rule 5 of the Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which makes provisions for an intra-court appeal. Rule 5 of the Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 reads as under :-
"An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award--(a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, 4 with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one judge".
8. From a perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is clear that no Special Appeal will lie in the following matter;
(i) the judgment passed by the Single Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court;
(ii) an order made by the Single Judge in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction;
(iii) an order made by the Single Judge in
the exercise of the power of superintendence of the
High Court;
(iv) an order made by the Single Judge in
the exercise of Criminal jurisdiction;
(v) an order made by the Single Judge in
the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by
Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India
in respect of any judgment, order or award by-
(a) the Tribunal,
(b) the Court, or
(c) Statutory arbitrator, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand) or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or
(vi) an order made by the Single Judge in respect of any judgment, order or award of the Government or any 5 Officer or Authority made or purported to be made in the exercise of the appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand) or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
9. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the respondents contended that the impugned order dated 23.07.2010 was passed by the CGRF and the CGRF is a "Tribunal", therefore, no intra-court appeal is maintainable against the order dated 08.05.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1463 of 2011 and order dated 07.08.2019, passed in Review Application No. 593 of 2019.
10. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 23.07.2010 was passed by the CGRF and the CGRF is not a "Tribunal", it is only an appointee of the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission.
11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
12. In order to decide the said question, it is necessary to refer the provision of sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter refereed as to "the Act, 2003"). Section 42(5) of the Act, 2003 reads as under:-
Section 42(5)- Every distribution licensee shall, within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, whichever is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission (State Electricity Regulatory Commission).6
13. Rule 7 (1) of the Electricity Rules, 2005 stipulates that the distribution licensee shall establish a Forum for Redressal of Grievances of Consumers under sub-section (5) of Section 42 which shall consist of officers of the licensee. The Appropriate Commission shall nominate one independent member who is familiar with the consumer affairs:
Provided that the manner of appointment and the qualification and experience of the persons to be appointed as member of the Forum and the procedure of dealing with the grievances of the consumers by the Forum and other similar matters would be as per the guidelines specified by the State Commission.
14. A tribunal, generally, is any person or institution with authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes, whether or not, it is called a tribunal in its title.
Nomenclature may be different. In Bharat Bank Limited vs. Employees of the Bharat Bank, 1950 SCR 459, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed, "......it is to be noticed that owing to the intricate and complex system of Government that exists in a modern State and the vast expansion of social legislation of all sorts that have taken place in England and in other countries including own, within the last few decades, the so called administrative and quasi-judicial tribunals have come to be a permanent feature of our social and political system. They function as adjudicating bodies in disputes concerning a large number of economic and social affairs. In a sense they are governmental bodies appertaining to the executive and not to the judicial branch of the State, though in various matters they are armed with judicial powers analogous to those normally carried out by Courts of law".
15. In Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd, Meerut vs. Lakshmichand and others, AIR 1963 SC 677, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed "Question whether a decision is judicial or is purely 7 administrative, often arises when jurisdiction of the superior courts to issue writs of certiorari is invoked. Often the line of distinction between decisions judicial and administrative is thin; but the principles for ascertaining the true character of the decisions are well-settled. A judicial decision is not always the act of a judge or a tribunal invested with power to determine questions of law or fact; it must however be the act of a body or authority invested by law with authority to determine questions or disputes affecting the rights of citizens and under a duty to act judicially. A judicial decision always postulates the existence of a duty laid upon the authority to act judicially. Administrative authorities are often invested with authority or power to determine questions, which affect the rights of citizens".
16. In Kihoto Hollohon vs. Shri Zachilhu, AIR 1993 SC 412, the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala, AIR 1961 SC 1669, set out a test to determine whether an authority exercising adjudicatory powers is a Tribunal or not;
....there is a lis an affirmation by one party and denial by another and the dispute necessarily involves a decision on the rights and obligations of the parties to it and the authority is called upon to decide it, there is an exercise of judicial power. That authority is called a Tribunal, if it does not have all the trappings of a Court.
17. In Sudershan Singh Bedi vs. Additional District Magistrate (Rent Control and Eviction Officer), Varanasi and others, Allahabad Rent Cases, 1993 (1) 121, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, while dealing the controversy of maintainability of Special Appeal under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 8 Act, 1972, has observed, "The word "Tribunal" has not been defined under this Act, but now it is settled principle of law that a tribunal is a body or an authority which is invested with the judicial power to adjudicate on question of law or fact affecting the right of parties in a judicial manner". In para 15, it was observed, "The declaration of vacancy by Rent Control and Eviction Officer contemplates pleadings and evidence and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is invested with the power of a Civil Court in regulating the procedure for taking evidence etc. He is also to determine the dispute after taking into account the objections raised by the parties and has to pass reasoned order". In these circumstances, it was held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer acts as a Tribunal and order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall be treated as an order of Tribunal.
18. In Pratappur Sugar and Industries Limited, Pratappur, District Deoria vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P. Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and others, [(2000) 3 UPLBEC, 2161], the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has observed that the dictionary meaning shows that tribunal is a body authorized by law to decide disputes and impart justice. The Division Bench referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Durga Shankar Mehta vs. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1950 SC 188, in which it was held that the expression "Tribunal" as used in Article 136 of the Constitution of India meant the same thing as Court but includes within its submit adjudicating bodies, provided they are constituted by State and are invested with judicial power as distinguished from purely administrative or executive functions. The Division Bench referred the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Nagar Sugar Mills vs. Shyam Sunder, AIR 1961 SC 1669, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that by "Tribunal" is meant those bodies of men who are appointed to decide controversies arising under certain special 9 laws. The Division Bench also referred the judgment of Hon'ble Constitution Bench in Engineering Mazdoor Sabha vs. The Hind Cycles Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 874, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, "....The expression "a court" in the technical sense is a Tribunal constituted by the State as a part of the ordinary hierarchy of courts which are invested with the State's inherent judicial powers. The tribunal as distinguished from the court, exercises judicial powers and decides matters brought before it judicially or quasi-judicially, but it does not constitute a court in the technical sense. The tribunal, according to the dictionary meaning, is a seat of justice; and in the discharge of its functions, it shares some of the characteristics of the court. A domestic Tribunal appointed in departmental proceedings, for instance, or instituted by an industrial employer cannot claim to be a tribunal under Article 136(1). Purely Administrative Tribunals are also outside the scope of the said Article. The Tribunals which are contemplated by Article 136(1) are clothed with some of the powers of the courts. They can compel witnesses to appear, they can administer oath, they are required to follow certain rules of procedure: the proceedings before them are required to comply with rules of natural justice, they may not be bound by the strict and technical rules of evidence, but, nevertheless, they must decide on evidence adduced before them; they may not be bound by other technical rules of law, but their decisions must, nevertheless, be consistent with the general principles of law. In other words, they have to act judicially and reach their decisions in an objective manner and they cannot proceed purely administratively or base their conclusions on subjective tests or inclinations. The procedural rules which regulate the proceedings before the tribunals and the powers conferred on them in dealing with matters brought before them, are sometimes described as the "trappings of a court" and in determining the question as to whether a particular body or authority is a tribunal or not, sometimes a 10 rough and ready test is applied by enquiring whether the said body or authority is clothed with the trappings of a court". In para 8, it was observed, ".....it would thus be noticed that apart from the importance of the trappings of a Court, the basic and essential condition which makes an authority or a body a tribunal under Article 136, is that it should be constituted by the State and should be invested with the State's inherent judicial power...". The Division Bench also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies vs. P.N. Sharma and another, AIR 1965 SC 1595, wherein, it was held, ".....Judicial functions and judicial powers are one of the essential attributes of a sovereign State, and on considerations of policy, the State transfers its judicial functions and powers mainly to the Courts established by the Constitution but that does not affect the competence of the State, by appropriate measures, to transfer a part of its judicial powers and functions to tribunals by entrusting to them the task of adjudicating upon special matters and disputes between parties. It is really not possible or even expedient to attempt to describe exhaustively the features which are common to the tribunals and the Courts, and features which are distinct and separate. The basis and the fundamental features which is common to both the Courts and the tribunals is that they discharge judicial functions and exercise judicial powers which inherently vest in a sovereign State.
In considering the question about the status of any body or authority as a Tribunal under Article 136(1) the main test to be applied is whether the body or authority has been constituted by the State and has been clothed with the State's inherent judicial power to deal with disputes between parties and determine them on the merits fairly and objectively".
1119. Applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench has held that an Additional/ Deputy Labour Commissioner while exercising power under sub-clause (6) of Clause LL of the Standing Orders functions as a Tribunal.
20. Reverting to the question whether this intra-court appeal is maintainable or not, we must consider the scheme of the Act, 2003.
21. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, 2003 which have been summarized in the Preamble, are:-
"An Act to consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to development of electricity industry, promoting competition therein, protecting interest of consumers and supply of electricity to all areas, rationalization of electricity tariff, ensuring transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies, constitution of Central Electricity Authority, Regulatory Commissions and establishment of Appellate Tribunal and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."
22. Section 181 of the Act, 2003 empowers the State Commission to make regulations and Section 181(2)(r) gives power to issue guidelines under sub-section (5) of Section 42 by making regulations.
23. By virtue of the provisions under Section 181(2) read with Section 42(5) of the Act, 2003, the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission had framed,"The Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for Appointment of Members and Procedure to be followed by the Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers) 12 Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred as to "the Regulations, 2007").
24. Regulation 2(1)(d) of the Regulations, 2007 defines "complaint" means the letter or application filed with the Forum seeking redressal of grievances concerning the supply of electricity, new connection or the services rendered by the Distribution Licensee, including alteration in load/demand, meters related matters, bill related issues and cases where licensees has charged price in excess of the price fixed by the Commission or has recovered the expenses incurred in excess of charges approved by the Commission in providing any electric line or electric plant.
Matters falling within the purview of any of the following provisions of the Act will not form a Complaint under these Regulations:-
(i) Unauthorized use of electricity as provided under Section 126 of the Act;
(ii) Offences and penalties as provided under Section 135 to 139 of the Act;
(iii) Accident in the distribution, supply or use of electricity as provided under Section 161 of the Act; and
(iv) Recovery of arrears where the bill amount is not disputed.
25. As per Regulation 2(1)(f) "Forum" means Forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers to be constituted by distribution licensee in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Act read with these Regulations.
26. Regulation 3 of the Regulations, 2007 is extracted hereinunder:-
"3. Constitution of The Forum For Redressal Of Grievances Of The Consumers:13
(1) In terms of sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Act, every distribution licensee shall establish one or more Forum as may be prescribed by the Commission for redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with these regulations.
(2) Each Forum shall consist of three officers of the licensee to be appointed by the Distribution licensee, through proper advertisement in the press and website, after prior approval of the Commission and possessing qualifications and experience as given below:
(a) Judicial Member of the Forum shall be a retired district judge/Additional District Judge or a retired judicial officer having at least 20 years of experience in legal/judicial profession or a retired civil servant not below the rank of a District Collector.
(b) Technical Member shall be a serving officer at the Headquarter of the licensee and not below the rank of General Manager or retired officer of the licensee company of the same rank, possessing degree in Electrical Engineering and having at least 15 years experience in matters relating to distribution of electricity or a retired Professor of the Electrical Engineering Department of any IIT or of any Government Engineering College.
[
(c) Consumer Member shall be nominated by the Commission and shall be a person of stature and repute having sufficient exposure to and experience of issues pertaining to consumers of electricity. (3) Any two Member of the Forum appointed as per(2) above shall form the quorum for forum's meeting. (4) The Commission may direct the Distribution Licensee to substitute a member of the Forum with another person as per the composition and qualification provided in sub-
14clause (2) above if in the opinion of the Commission such substitution is necessary for the proper or effective redressal of the grievances of the Consumers. (5) Members shall hold office for the term of three years which would be extendable upto two years. The upper age limit for the appointment of the Member shall be 62 years and can hold the office only upto the age of 65 years. (6) The Distribution Licensee shall ensure that no post of a member in the Forum remains vacant for a period exceeding 30 days.
(7) No person shall be appointed and/or be entitled to continue as a member if he stands disqualified on account of his:
(a) Having been adjudged as an insolvent;
(b) Having been convicted of an offence, involving moral turpitude;
(c) Having become physically or mentally incapable of acting as such member;
(d) Having acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a member;
(e) Having so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest; or
(f) Having been guilty of misbehaviour;
(g) Having been guilty of action(s) inconsistent with norms of conduct expected of any judicial or quasi judicial functionary.
(8) An existing member shall be liable to be removed from his office forthwith in the event of any of the disqualifications provided above arising or being discovered. Provided that no member shall be removed from his office on any ground specified in sub-regulation (7) unless the Distribution Licensee, has, on an inquiry held 15 by it, concluded that such member ought, on such ground or grounds, be removed.
(9) The salary, sitting fees, honorarium and/or other allowances (collectively called "Remuneration") payable to all the members appointed under sub-regulation (2) above including their terms of appointment shall be uniform and such as may be prescribed by the Commission. The Judicial and Consumer member shall be appointed as full time members and Judicial Member shall be administrative head of the Forum.
(10) For efficient functioning of the Forum, the Distribution licensee shall provide:
i. An office space consisting of three rooms one each for the three members, a hearing hall/room, one record room and one common room for the Secretarial staff.
ii. Computers and other facilities required by the members/Secretarial staff.
(11) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of sub-
regulation (9) above, the terms and conditions of service of a member in the Forum who is in the employment of the Distribution Licensee shall be governed by the terms and conditions of his employment with such Distribution Licensee.
(12) All costs prudently incurred by a Distribution Licensee on the establishment and running of the Forum, to the extent reasonable and justifiable, shall be allowed in the determination of tariff of the Distribution Licensee in accordance with the regulations of the Commission. (13) The Forum shall receive the complaints of consumers forwarded or filed with the Forum so long as such complaints are in writing and the Forum shall not insist on or prescribe any specific format for filing of complaints or for entertaining them.
16(14) The Forum shall have sittings at such Principal office and also at any other place in each district in the area of supply of the Distribution Licensee as may be decided by the Forum from time to time or as the Commission may direct from time to time considering the number of complaints received, the place from where the complaints are received and the proximity to the principal place of business of the Distribution Licensees and other relevant factors.
(15) The Distribution Licensee shall from time to time give publicity of the constitution and existence of the Forum including in the bills raised for the supply of electricity to the consumers and in such other manner as the Commission may from time to time lay down. The names, designation of the Members and the concerned officers of the Forum, the address, e-mail, facsimile and phone numbers of the Forum and the members shall be displayed at all the offices of the Distribution Licensee and shall also be duly publicised including on the bills raised on the Consumers.
(16) The office of the Forum shall issue acknowledgment of the receipt of the Complaint to the Complainant showing clearly the date of receipt of complaint and carrying Seal of the Forum. No complaint shall be returned to the Complainant without issuing acknowledgement of its receipt and the same shall be disposed off according to law.
In any hearing, the Distribution Licensee, shall not be represented by professional counsel, attorney or advocate, unless the Forum so permits. However, where the consumer chooses to be represented by counsel, attorney or advocate, then the Distribution Licensee shall be granted a similar privilege.
17(17) The Forum shall maintain true and correct records of all Complaints received by the Forum from time to time and make available such records for inspection as the Commission may require from time to time.
(18) The Forum shall decide the Complaints received expeditiously and shall communicate its decision to the Complainant within a period not exceeding 60 days of the receipt of the Complaint. The Forum shall give the reasons in support of its decisions.
(19) If a member hearing the matter does not agree with the decision taken by other Members, he may record his note of dissent with reasons but the decision taken by majority of members hearing the case will prevail.
(20) All decisions of the Forum shall strictly be in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder and Orders and directions issued by the Commission from time to time. (21) If after the completion of the proceedings, the Forum is satisfied that any of the allegations contained in the Grievance is correct, it shall issue an order to the Distribution Licensee directing it to do one or more of the following things in a time bound manner, namely-
(a) To return to the applicant the undue charges paid by it;
(b) To pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the applicant, provided however that in no case shall any consumer be entitled to indirect, consequential, incidental, punitive, or exemplary damages, loss of profits or opportunity, whether arising in contract, tort, warranty, strict liability or any legal theory;
(c) To remove the cause of Grievance in question;
(d) To comply with the order within stipulated time.
18(e) To give a compliance report within the time limit specified in these regulations.
(f) To apprise the aggrieved person of the things he is required to do along with time limits, for compliance of the order.
(g) Any other order deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(22) The Forum, after considering all submissions written or oral made before it by complainant or licensee, shall pass speaking orders giving the reasons in support of its decisions. Every order passed by the Forum shall be signed by all the members deciding the case.
(23) Certified copies of every order passed by the Forum shall be delivered to the parties within 3 days of the order. (24) The order of the Forum shall be binding on the Aggrieved Person and the Distribution Licensee.
(25) The Forum shall specify the period for compliance by Distribution Licensee or the consumer as the case may be. Normally this period should be 30 days. In case, compliance of the Order involves major work/scope to be done, this period of 30 days may be extended with the reasons to be recorded in writing.
The Distribution Licensee and the applicant shall comply with the order diligently and within the timeframe as specified in the Order and report compliance to Forum within 7 days of the implementation of the order. In case of delay in compliance beyond the time limit stipulated by the Forum in its order, the applicant or the Distribution Licensee as the case may be, shall file the reasons for delay on its part within 7 days of the stipulated date and give the likely date by which compliance shall be made.
(26) The Forum may take appropriate action, if deemed fit, for any delay in implementation of its order or in filing of the compliance report by the Distribution Licensee.
19(27) Non-compliance of Forum's Order by either party shall be in violation of these Regulations and shall be liable for appropriate remedial action against it under Section 142 and 146 read with Section 149 of the Electricity Act, 2003. [[ (28) Any Consumer aggrieved by the order made by the Forum or on account of non-implementation of the same by either party or non-disposal of his complaint by the Forum within the specified time limit may prefer an appeal to the Ombudsman appointed by the Commission under the Act, in such form and manner, as may be laid down in the Regulations made by the Commission.
(29) The Commission shall have the general powers of superintendence and control over the Forum and for this purpose may call for any record from the Forum/licensee and pass appropriate orders thereupon. The Forum/licensee shall duly comply with such directions as the Commission may issue from time to time.
27. It is not disputed that when the cause of action of the instant matter arose, the Regulations, 2007 was applicable. The Act, 2003 and the Regulations, 2007 make specific provisions regarding the mode of redressal of a grievance of a consumer. The Forum is a statutory body. The Forum is under statutory duty to settle dispute raised by the consumer, within the guidelines laid down by the Commission, on merits. Under the provisions of the Act, 2003 and the Regulations, 2007, the consumer disputes can be decided only by the proper forum under Section 42(5) of the Act, 2003. According to the Regulation 3, the Forum shall receive the complaints of consumers. The Forum shall maintain true and correct records of all complaints. The Forum shall decide the complaints expeditiously after hearing parties and shall communicate its decision to the complainant within a period not exceeding 60 days of the receipt of the complaint. The Forum shall give the reasons in support of its decisions. The 20 Forum, after considering all submissions written or oral made before it by complainant or licensee, shall pass speaking orders giving the reasons in support of its decisions. Every order passed by the Forum shall be signed by all the members deciding the case. The order of the Forum shall be binding on the Aggrieved Person and the Distribution Licensee. The Forum shall specify the period for compliance by Distribution Licensee or the consumer, as the case may be. The Forum may take appropriate action, if deemed fit, for any delay in implementation of its order or in filing of the compliance report by the Distribution Licensee. Non-compliance of Forum's order by either party shall be in violation of the Regulations, 2007 and shall be liable for appropriate remedial action against it under Section 142 and 146 read with Section 149 of the Act, 2003. The decision of the Forum shall be final subject to the appeal to the Ombudsman, appointed by the Commission under the Act, 2003, in such form and manner, as may be laid down in the Regulations made by the Commission.
28. Applying the test laid down by the decisions as above mentioned, the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, which is invested with judicial power as distinguished from purely administrative or executive function, while exercising the power under the Act, 2003 and the Regulations, 2007, acts as a "Tribunal".
29. In Shanta Kumar Belwal Vs. M/S G.S. Bhandari and Co., 2011 (1) UD 44, a Division Bench of this High Court observed that a right of appeal is a creature of a statute and a litigant does not have an inherent right to prefer the appeal against an order or judgment unless such a right is conferred to the litigant by law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kania and another, 1981 (4) SCC 8, wherein it was held that the right of an appeal, available to a litigant, depends on the statute 21 creating a right to appeal, and the order must be an order made appealable by the statute and has to satisfy the test. The Division Bench has held that the provision of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court makes it absolutely clear that no appeal shall lie against a judgment rendered in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or an award of a Tribunal.
30. For the reasons discussed above, in the result, the instant intra-court appeal, filed against the order dated 08.05.2019 of the learned Single Judge, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1463 of 2011 and order dated 07.08.2019, passed in Review Application No. 593 of 2019, is not maintainable under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
31. Therefore, the intra-court appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. The intra-court appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ.) 08.07.2020 NEHA