Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The Station Manager vs Ganaranjan Chapadar @ Ganga Ranjan ... on 4 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas
C.O. No. 89 of 2014
The Station Manager, Mathurapur Group Electric Supply, WBSEDCL
-Versus-
Ganaranjan Chapadar @ Ganga Ranjan Chapadar @ Ganda Nanda
Chapadar
For the Petitioner : Mr. Srijan Nayak,
Mrs. Rituparna Maitra.
For the Opposite Party :
Hearing concluded on : 19.03.2024
Judgment On : 04.04.2024
Prasenjit Biswas, J:-
1. This revisional application is directed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order dated 19.12.2013 in
2
SC/FA/1274/2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, West Bengal and order dated 31.10.2013 passed in EA Case No.
26 of 2013 arising out of order dated 31.12.2012 in C.C. Case No. 28 of 2012
passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, South 24 Parganas.
2. Despite service affected upon the opposite party she did not venture to
appear and contest the present revisional application.
3. The opposite party (herein) made an application for getting a new
electric connection from the petitioner/ the Station Manager, Mathurapur
Group Electric Supply, South 24 Parganas under the West Bengal State
Electricity Distribution Company Limited and deposited the required amount.
A dispute was going on between the opposite party and one Sanatan Halder
over the issue of installing any pole on the disputed land for providing
connection to the opposite party by the present petitioner. The said Sanatan
Halder instituted a suit against the opposite party (herein) being Title Suit No.
54 of 2002 before the Civil Court and obtained an order of injunction but the
respondent in suppression of material fact and order of injunction granted by
the Civil Court filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum and obtained an order dated 31.12.2012. Since the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the civil suit instituted by Sanatan Halder, it was not possible on the part of the electricity company to know about the order of injunction granted by the Court. It is stated by the petitioner that although the company proceeded for giving connection to the opposite party but was restrained by the said Sanatan Halder. The District Consumer Forum directed the company 3 to provide connection to the opposite party (herein) and also passed an order of compensation and cost to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. It is further stated by the petitioner that the opposite party suppressed the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court at the time of moving the application before the District Consumer Forum. As the connection could not be provided to the petitioner/applicant the opposite party (herein) filed one execution case before the said District Consumer Forum who issued warrant of arrest against the present petitioner along with a lot of penal orders which were also passed against the present petitioner.
4. In the mean time the said Sanatan Halder preferred an application before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which was numbered as W.P. 13788 (W) of 2013 and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by passing the following order. The relevant portion of the said order is hereby reproduced below:-
"learned Counsel for the distribution company however submits that the pathway through which his client intends to lay the supply line would not disturb the property of the petitioner. In the event the supply line is drawn without interfering with the land in respect of which the declaratory decree has been obtained in the aforesaid suit, then distribution company shall be at liberty to do so. If the said route does not fall on any third party land, then the distribution company shall be entitled to obtain police assistance for laying such line in the event there is unnecessary objection from any busybody. If however the 4 supply line is required to be carried through any third party land, then the provisions of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 shall have to be adhered to."
5. Thereafter a petition was taken out at the behest of the petitioner in the said execution case by stating that the opposite party obtained the impugned order of warrant of arrest in suppression of material fact that there was an order of injunction by the Civil Court in installing the pole and meter over the land in question and that order of injection was totally kept concealed by the petitioner at the time of hearing of the case. The said petition filed by the present petitioner was rejected by the Executing Court with observation that since the matter was already decided, the forum had no authority to recall the order in question. Challenging the said order an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal and after hearing the parties the appeal was rejected by the Appellate Forum with observation that the order of the District Consumer Forum was not needed to be set aside.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, the petitioner has preferred this instant revisional application.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before this Court interalia that the learned State Commission has failed to apply its mind that the learned District Consumer Forum has wrongly issued warrant of arrest against the present petitioner. It is further assailed by the learned 5 Counsel that both the forums failed to appreciate that there was suppression of material fact that the Civil Court passed an order of injunction restraining the company from installing any pole over the land in question and for that reason it could not be possible on the part of the company to provide connection to the petitioner.
8. The attention of the Court is drawn by the learned Counsel about the definition of consumer as laid down under Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act which are defined as follows:-
"Consumer" means any person who is 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 electrify with the works of a licensee, this Government or such other person, as the case may be".
"Section 2(d) : "Consumer" means any person who-,-
(i) Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly 3 promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but 6 does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person [but does not include] a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose".
9. Section 2(1)(b) in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986(b) defines "complainant" as follows:
"2. (1)(b) 'complainant' means
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force; or
(iii) the Central Government or any State Government; or
(iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest;
(v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative;" 7
10. The attention of this Court is drawn about a decision rendered by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Station Manager Nandakumar Grp.Elect.Supply WBSEDCL Vs. Namita Das in CO No. 1950 of 2014 wherein seminal facts of the case was involved and the learned Co-ordinate Bench was pleased to set aside the orders passed by District Forum as well as Appellate Forum.
11. Upon bear reading of the definition "Consumer" under Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 it appears that consumer is a person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or by any other person engaged in the business to supply electricity to public under the Act and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of licensee. So, an applicant who intends to get electricity connection from the company becomes a consumer within the meaning of that Section if he is supplied with electrical energy by the board. The word 'consumer' also takes in a person, whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee. But the present petitioner would not fall under both the links of the definition clause 'consumer' and he is only a prospective consumer. The prospective consumer becomes a consumer only after executing the agreement and he or she will be bound by the conditions of supply of electrical energy as per the relevant provision of the Act.
12. In this case the opposite party (herein) approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum with the allegation that the WBSEDCL did not 8 supply with electricity although he had made necessary payment and discharge his obligation. It is admitted position that at that point of time when he approached before the Consumer Forum he was not a consumer either as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or under Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and by any means he cannot be termed as a consumer in view of definition as provided in the said Acts.
13. So, it is clear that the opposite party (herein) was not a consumer defined under the Electricity Act 2003 or under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such both the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum committed jurisdictional error by passing the orders under challenge and the same should not be allowed to stand and accordingly, those orders are liable to be set aside.
14. Accordingly, orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in connection with Case No. SC/FA/1274/2013 dated 19.12.2013 and order passed in EA Case No. 26 of 2013 dated 31.10.2013 arising out of order dated 31.12.2012 in C.C. Case No. 28 of 2012 passed by the learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas are hereby set aside.
15. The revisional application being No. C.O. No. 89 of 2014 is hereby allowed but without any order as to costs.
16. It is further to be mentioned here that there will be no means of interference in the electric connection already given to the opposite party by 9 the petitioner/ West Bengal State Electricity Development Corporation Limited.
17. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties on payment of requisite fees.
(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)