Full Text
#20 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 5057/2013 & CM APPL. 11398/2015
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sunil Fernandes with Mr. Deepak Pathak and Ms. Mithu Jain, Advocates
Through Mr. Mohit K. Sharma, Advocate
Date of Decision: 21st September, 2015
JUDGMENT
1. Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the notice dated 22nd March, 2012 and the order dated 9th April, 2013 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (BRPL) [for short “CGRF”].
2. Mr. Sunil Fernandes, learned counsel for petitioner submits that CGRF had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the respondent inasmuch as Regulation 8 of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers And Ombudsman) Regulations, 2003 [for short “Regulations, 2015:DHC:7893 2003”] prohibits CGRF from entertaining grievances arising under Sections 126, 127, 135, 139, 143, 152 and 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 [for short “Act, 2003”].
3. Mr. Fernandes further submits that the impugned notice and order are contrary to the Division Bench’s judgment in B.L. Kantroo vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., 154 (2008) DLT 56 (DB).
4. On the other hand, Mr. Mohit K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent contends that as respondent had filed an application for change of meter on 10th June, 2008 under the BSES Amnesty Scheme, 2008, he was immune from any criminal/legal proceedings. He states that in B.L. Kantroo (supra), the said petitioner had not applied under any amnesty scheme.
5. Mr. Sharma submits that as the complaint of theft had not been lodged within twenty-four hours under Section 135(1A) of the Act, 2003, the allegation of theft cannot be looked into.
6. In rejoinder, Mr. Fernandes denies that the petitioner had ever applied under any amnesty scheme. He also points out that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a number of cases has set aside similar orders passed by the CGRF on the ground of jurisdiction.
7. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that it is first essential to refer to Section 42(5) of the Act, 2003 and Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations, 2003. The said provisions are reproduced hereinbelow:- A) Section 42(5) of the Act, 2003:- “42. Duties of distribution licensees and open accessxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (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.” B) Regulations 7 and 8 of Regulations, 2003:-
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that once an allegation of theft of electricity is levelled, the CGRF would have no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of a consumer.
9. The CGRF in the impugned order to reach the conclusion that it has jurisdiction, has first held that Section 135 of the Act, 2003 is not attracted to the proceedings before it. In the opinion of this Court, CGRF could not have given a finding that Section 135 of the Act, 2003 is not attracted as such a finding can only be rendered by a Special Court under Section 153 of the Act, 2003.
10. Consequently, the impugned notice and order are set aside. However, it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the controversy and respondent is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, present petition and application stand disposed of. MANMOHAN, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 rn