CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A P LTD , AND OTHERS Vs. CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM OF APCPDCL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first appellant is a distribution licensee as defined in Section 2(17) of the Electricity Act, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the Act. The second respondent is a consumer as defined in Section 2(15) of that Act. The first respondent is the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, hereinafter referred to as the Redressal Forum established by the first appellant distribution licensee in terms of Section 42(5) of the Act. The second respondent consumer presented a grievance for redressal before the first respondent Redressal Forum. After hearing the consumer and the distribution licensee, the Redressal Forum issued a decision. The distribution licensee filed writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the decision issued by the Redressal Forum. The learned single Judge held that the writ petition is not maintainable and the distribution licensee is bound to give effect to the decision of the Redressal Forum. The learned single Judge held that clause 14 of Chapter IV of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Establishment of Forum and Vidyut Ombudsman for Redressal of Grievances of Consumers) Regulation, 2004; hereinafter referred to as the Regulations; provides power to remove difficulties could be resorted to by the distribution licensee and not otherwise. It is also held that clause 5(11)(c) of the Regulations makes it mandatory that the distribution licensee shall implement the decisions and orders of the Redressal Forum made in favour of the complainant. For these reasons, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, this Appeal by the distribution licensee.

(2.) Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

(3.) Making reference to different judicial precedents, in particular L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 the learned counsel appearing for the appellant distribution licensee argued that the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed as not maintainable. He argued that there is no exclusion of judicial review through any of the provisions of the Regulations or the Act; and, more importantly, there can be no exclusion of judicial review if requisite grounds are established. It is pointed out that even as per the impugned Judgment, no alternative efficacious remedy has been noticed and the power to remove difficulties available to the Commission under the Regulations is not a remedy available to a distribution licensee against a decision of the Redressal Forum. He also argued that it cannot be taken that the distribution licensee has no right at all to challenge the decision of the Redressal Forum; even if, the question whether the writ Court would interfere, would be an issue in the realm of judicial discretion.