Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: cgrf in Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs M/S. Technocraft Industries (I) Ltd. ... on 20 January, 2023Matching Fragments
(FAC). It appears to be not in dispute that the petitioner being a licensee under the 2003 Act was permitted to recover such cost by the Maharashtra Electricity Regularity Commission (for short 'MERC'). The
-------------------------
20 January, 2023 PVR 19.odt issue as raised before the CGRF by the respondents in the original proceedings, was whether the petitioner would be entitled to recover anything more than six installments inasmuch as there were seven installments which were raised by the petitioner. On such plea of the respondents, an order dated 11 January 2017 came to be passed by the CGRF whereby the petitioners were directed to verify the claim of the respondent-consumer as it was a post facto approval which was given by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, to refund / adjust the amounts. It was ordered that such exercise be completed by the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of the said order and compliance be reported within two months from the receipt of the said order. The case of the petitioner is that such directions of the CGRF as contained in the order dated 11 January 2017 were complied by the petitioner on 3 February 2017, and a communication to that effect be placed on record. It appears that, however, the proceedings were taken up by the CGRF on 8 March 2017. It is the petitioners' case that no notice that the proceedings would be taken up on such date, was issued to the petitioner, when the CGRF proceeded to pass the impugned order.
4. The petitioner has more than one grievance in regard to the impugned order. The first grievance is that no notice of listing/ hearing of the proceedings leading to the passing of the impugned order was
-------------------------
20 January, 2023
PVR 19.odt
issued to the petitioner. The second grievance is that in the impugned order, Mr.Vijayanand S. Kale, Executive Engineer, was recorded to be present on behalf of the petitioner, who was never present, as he was transferred to Aurangabad by an order of the Petitioner dated 31 December 2016 which is annexed to the petition at 'Exhibit M', which recorded that: 'In pursuance of Corporate Office Order No. HR/ T/ E/ Deputation/ VSK/ 34907 dtd 23.11.2016, Shri.Vijayanand Sampatrao Kale, Executive Engineer (Distribution) (CPF No.2147491) working in Kalyan Circle - I is hereby relieved from his duties on today i.e. 31.12.2016 A.N., so as to enable him to report at Meda Div. Office, Aurangabad on deputation.' Thus, Mr. Kale being relieved, the Petitioner has contended that there was no question of Mr.Kale remaining present at any hearing when the impugned order was passed. The third grievance is in regard to the nature of the directions as contained in the impugned order, which the petitioner contends amounts to the CGRF, exercising a review jurisdiction in reviewing its order dated 11 January 2017. This inasmuch as, there were no fresh proceedings before the CGRF. It is contended that the CGRF was conscious of the fact that there was no jurisdiction and authority with the CGRF to review its order, hence, in the impugned order, the CGRF had categorically observed that there are no review powers available to the CGRF, however, a clarification was sought to be issued in the welfare of the consumer. His contention is that the nature of such order is
-------------------------
20 January, 2023
PVR 19.odt
well aware of its limitations that it had no powers to review its orders. It is a well settled principle of law that unless the power of review is expressly conferred by the Statute, a quasi judicial authority cannot review its own order. Further, once an order has become final, it cannot be reviewed by the authority passing such order unless the law specifically confers a power to review the order. (See: Dr.Smt.Kuntesh Guptra Vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) & Ors.1; H.C.Suman & Anr. Vs. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Co- operative House Building Society Ltd.New Delhi & Ors. 2) In the absence of any substantive provision under the 2003 Act conferring a power and authority with the CGRF to review its orders, the orders passed by the CGRF could not be reviewed by the CGRF, either explicitly or in an implicit manner, much less in the garb of a clarification. For convenience, it is appropriate to refer to such observations as made by the CGRF in the impugned order:-
-------------------------
20 January, 2023
PVR 19.odt
9. The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate that the CGRF was hasty in passing the impugned order. The authority like CGRF although is required to act in consumer interest, however at the same time, it is necessary for the CGRF to bear in mind the interest of the licensees who are required to act under the 2003 Act as also the orders passed thereunder by the Electricity Regulatory Commission and the other appropriate authorities. It would be fatal for the CGRF to pass any orders in the absence of the licensee being represented before it and an appropriate clarification in regard to not only the legal aspects but also on the factual aspects is placed for its consideration by the licensee. On such backdrop, after hearing the parties, an order in accordance with law is required to be passed by the CGRF. Thus, any procedural regularity in passing orders by the CGRF ought not to lead to an unwarranted consequence of litigation being generated, as in the present case. Such situations, necessarily are required to be avoided by bodies like CGRF, whose duty under the Act is to redress the grievance of the consumer and in accordance with the guidelines as may be prescribed by the State Commission as Section 42(5) of the 2003 Act would mandate.