GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO LTD Vs. SHARANAPPA S/O GURULINGAPPA BIRADAR MAJOR AND DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition is an Electricity Supply Company Limited represented by its assistant Executive Engineer. It has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 09. 06. 2004 on I. A. I in complaint No. 22/2004 vide Annexure 'e' on the file of the second respondent herein. Further, it has sought for a writ of prohibition preventing the second respondent from taking any further proceedings in complaint No. 22/04 and/or pursuant to the order dated 09. 06. 04 passed on I. A. I in complaint No. 22/04 on the file of the second respondent.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner-Company in the instant writ petition is that, the first respondent herein had filed a complaint before the second respondent under Section 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter called as 'act' for short) seeking a direction to give power connection and to quash the back-billing charges of Rs. 18,018/- and compounding fee of rs. 3,000/- and to pay the damages of Rs. 25,000/- towards the mental agony alleged to have been suffered by the complainant due to the alleged deficiency of service on the ground that, the complainant-first respondent herein has constructed a house on Plot No. 137 of Anandeshwar nagar, Jewargi Road, Gulbarga and at the time of constructing the house, the complainant had obtained temporary power connection and thereafter the complainant applied for permanent power supply to the petitioner-Company. The petitioner-Company by its communication directed the first respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,750/- under various heads. Accordingly, the first respondent has deposited the aforesaid amount as per the sanctioned order. When things stood thus, the first respondent visited the office of the petitioner-Company time and again and also sent legal notice dated 06. 02. 03. The first respondent had visited the petitioner-Company requesting supply of power connection. After receipt of the said legal notice, the officials of the petitioner-Company have made a surprise visit and found on the spot that, the first respondent has committed theft of electricity to the extent of 11 kilo watts and accordingly on the basis of the report submitted by the officials of the petitioner-Company, they issued back-billing demand of Rs. 18,018/- and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compounding fee and thereafter the petitioner-Company also registered the complaint and numbered the same as C. C. No. 50/03 and the same is pending before the competent court. Be that as it may, the first respondent herein has filed the complaint before the second respondent under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection act and the same is numbered complaint No. 22/04. Along with the complaint filed by the first respondent, he has filed I. A. I under Section 151 of the C. P. C. seeking an interim order, directing the petitioner-Company to give power connection to his house pending decision on the complaint filed by the first respondent. The said I. A. I filed by the first respondent in complaint no. 22/04 on the file of the second respondent had come up for consideration on 09. 06. 2004. The second respondent, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gulbarga, after hearing both the sides, has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner-Company to give power connection to the house of the first respondent situated in Plot No. 137 at Anandeshwar Nagar, gulbarga. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide annexure 'e' and seeking further prayer as stated supra, the petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant Writ Petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned. Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. After careful evaluation of the entire material available in the file including the order passed by the second respondent vide Annexure 'e' dated 09. 06. 2004 on I. A. I in complaint No. 22/04 and also the objection filed by the petitioner-Company before the second respondent vide annexure 'c', it is manifest on the face of the order passed by the second respondent that the second respondent has committed grave error and illegality in proceeding to entertain the application filed on the complaint filed by the first respondent and issuing interim direction to the petitioner-Company to give power connection to the house of the first respondent. The reasons assigned for issuing such directions is that prima facie they were satisfied that the case on hand is not theft of electricity. Further, the second respondent has not followed the well settled principles of law laid down by this Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim v. District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolar and Ors. reported in 2003 National Commission judgments 20 (Karnataka High Court) and also not made any sincere efforts to go through the relevant provisions of Section 145 of The Electricity Act, 2003. It is crystal clear that in pursuance of any power conferred by/under this Act in respect of any action taken or to be taken, no civil court or any other authority has got jurisdiction. It is significant to note here itself that the second respondent has committed a glaring illegality. The second respondent, Forum presided over by some Officers have rejected three complaints filed before them in complaint nos. 41, 43 and 62/03 by its order dated 29. 04. 04 following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court and this Court and also with reference to the decision of the National Commission in paras 14 and 15 of the order, which is produced by the petitioner along with the instant Writ Petition vide Annexure 'f'. After careful perusal of Annexure 'f' the order passed by the Consumer forum dated 29. 04. 04 rejecting the complaint filed by the complainant-the 1st respondent herein, an order has been passed on 09. 06. 04 within a span of less than two months and that too without considering the stand taken by the petitioner-Company in their objections produced vide annexure 'c, wherein, it has been categorically stated that, complainant/first respondent has committed theft of electricity which has been found on the inspection made by the Vigilance squad of the petitioner-Company on 13. 04. 03 and accordingly, they have issued a back-billing demand notice, directing the first respondent to pay the said sum within thirty days. Further it is specifically pointed out that a criminal case was also booked in C. C. No. 50/04 which is pending adjudication on the file of the competent Court. As per Section 42. 06 of the K. E. R. C. (Electricity supply and Distribution) Code, 2000-2001, if any person has committed theft by dishonest abstraction of electricity, the petitioner-Company is entitled to disconnect the installation without notice and under Section 44. 01, if any consumer is aggrieved by the supplementary claims, he can file an appeal before the concerned Authority within 30 days. When the statute has provided a quick, inexpensive, effective and alternative remedy, the first respondent ought to have availed the said benefit provided under the mandatory provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with K. E. R. C. (Electrical Supply and Distribution) Code, 2000-2001.