Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

2. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.9.2009 passed by Electricity Ombudsman (hereinafter referred to as "Ombudsman") on representation made by Consumer, respondent no. 3, against the order dated 16.12.2008 passed by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (hereafter referred to as "CGRF") denying refund of Rs. 14.44 lacs to respondent no. 3. The Ombudsman has set aside the order of CGRF to the extent it denies refund of Rs. 14.44 lacs to petitioner and has held that petitioner is not liable to pay any amount and the amount already paid by petitioner shall be adjusted.

9. The Court noticed provisions of U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations, 2007") and found that it is open to a consumer to raise his grievance before CGRF. Consequently the Court modified its judgment dated 5.10.2007 giving liberty to Consumer to approach CGRF who was directed to decide such representation.

10. It is pursuant to this order, respondent no. 3 filed a complaint before CGRF, Meerut vide its petition dated 30.1.2008. Besides challenging the assessment made by Executive Engineer (petitioner no. 2) for Rs. 51,54,749/-, he (the consumer) also challenged earlier assessment notice dated 9.5.2005 made for Rs. 14.44 lacs and odd and requested CGRF to set aside both the assessments and direct licensee to refund the amount already paid by the Consumer.

12. CGRF, however, decided the matter by order dated 7.12.2008 setting aside assessment of 51,54,749/- but rejected the claim of consumer against assessment of Rs. 14,44,251/- which amount had already been paid by it. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed representation under Clause 8 of Regulations, 2007 read with Section 42 (6) of Act, 2003. Respondent no. 3 also filed a representation assailing CGRF's order insofar as it had non suited the consumer against assessment made for Rs. 14.44 and odd but the said document has not been placed on record. Respondent no. 3 also filed a Misc. application registered as 28-C/09 requesting Ombudsman to direct licensee to act according to CGRF's order dated 16.12.2002 in respect to assessment of Rs. 51.54 lacs and odd and not to raise any demand in this regard.

18. When the statute itself creates an adjudicatory forum as well as the appellate forum, a parallel forum by means of a subordinate legislation is not permissible. Therefore CGRF and Ombudsman constituted under Regulation, 2007 by UPERC cannot have jurisdiction to have a review of orders passed by Assessing Officer under Section 126 or the appellate order(s) under Section 127 of Act, 2003. In my view CGRF in such matters has no jurisdiction at all.

19. It is,however, pointed out by learned counsel for respondent no. 3 that Consumer approached CGRF under the judgment of this Court and therefore it cannot be said that CGRF has no jurisdiction in the matter. A perusal of judgment dated 5.10.2007 as modified on 11.1.2008 shows that there was no issue raised before this Court regarding applicability of Regulations, 2007 in respect to assessment orders made by "Assessing Officer" which are referable to Section 126 of Act, 2003. The Court proceeded assuming jurisdiction with CGRF since it was not disputed or contested by the parties before it.