Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"05) The question before us is whether the order dated 13.04.05 and the penalty order dated 23.08.05 are within jurisdiction.

The order dated 23.08.05 is passed for non-compliance of the order dated 13.04.05. Therefore, the principal issue is whether the Commission had the jurisdiction to pass the order dated 13.04.05.

06) There is no dispute that the order dated 13.04.05 was passed in a petition challenging the order of CGRF. Therefore, the Commission has exercised appellate jurisdiction over an order of CGRF. There is no dispute that the CGRF which was constituted on 12.05.04 was the right forum which heard the Respondent's application regarding the bills raised by the appellant and regarding its prayer for restoration of connection. It is also not disputed that there is no provision either in the Act or in the Regulations framed by the Commission providing for any appeal to the Commission from the order of the CGRF. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 contends that since there was no Ombudsman the Respondent No.2 contends that Appeal No.153 of 2011 and since there was no Ombudsman the Respondent No.2 took up the matter with the Commission. The Ombudsman came into existence on 16.08.05. Admittedly the Regulation allows an appeal from the order of the CGRF to the Ombudsman. On 13.04.05 when the impugned order was passed by the Commission there was no Ombudsman and, therefore, no appeal from the CGRF could be presented. The simple question is whether in the absence of the Ombudsman the Commission could have assumed the appellate jurisdiction from the order of CGRF.

07) The powers of the Commission are enumerated in section 86 of the Act. One of the powers enumerated therein is the power to adjudicate a dispute between the licensees and generating companies and to refer any dispute to arbitration. There is no power given to the Commission to adjudicate upon disputes between licensees and consumers. The Commission framed the Electricity Supply Code 2005 in exercise of powers conferred by section 50 and section 181, read with sections 43 to 48, 50, 55 to 59 of the Act which was notified on 18.02.05. The Supply Code, inter alia, provided for setting up of CGRF in accordance with UPERC Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman Regulations 2003 as amended from time to time. This also provides that any consumer aggrieved by non-redressal of his grievance by CGRF may make a representation for the redressal of his grievance by CGRF may make a representation for the redressal of his grievance to the Ombudsman appointed by the Commission. Earlier to that the Commission had framed UPERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman Regulation 2003) which came into effect on 09.12.03. These Regulations provided an appeal before the State Regulatory Commission from the order of the Ombudsman. There was no provision at any point of time for an appeal to the Commission from the CGRF.

08) The Commission cannot assume jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the order of CGRF simply because the Ombudsman had not been established till then. The Appeal No.153 of 2011 and jurisdiction of the Commission has to be granted by the legislature. The legislature not having granted any such power the Commission could not have assumed such a jurisdiction. The Commission did not have any original jurisdiction to decide the question as section 86 does not give any such power to the Commission.

09) In our earlier judgment, in M/s. Polyplex Corporation Ltd. Vs. Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. in appeal No.220 of 2006, this Tribunal held that no petition/appeal/application lies before any Regulatory Commission or this Tribunal in respect of billing matters. We also held that no petition/appeal/application lies to any Regulatory Commission or Appellate Tribunal from an order passed by the Ombudsman or CGRF or any other body like the Appellate Committee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 381 held that section 86(1) (f) of The Electricity Act 2003 which prescribes the adjudicatory functions of the State Commission does not encompass within its domain complaints of individual consumers and that it only provides that the Commission can adjudicate upon the disputes between the licensees and the generating companies and to refer any such dispute to arbitration. The Supreme Court affirmed that this does not include in it a grievance of an individual consumer. The Supreme Court further held that a proper forum for that is section 42(5) and thereafter section 42(6), read with the Regulation, if any, which provide for establishing the CGRF and the Ombudsman.