SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER Vs. NIMAI CARAN PANIGRAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mohanty, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioners, who hold offices in the supply company. He submits, annexure-1 in the writ petition is notice dtd. 16/8/2011 issued by Grievance Redressal Forum, Berhampur on opposite party having had moved it with his grievance. Opposite party thereafter moved the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA). The PLA illegally and with material irregularity assumed jurisdiction to passed impugned award dtd. 1/2/2012.

(2.) He relies on Electricity Act, 2003, Sec. 42(5) to (7). He submits, the statute requires every distribution licencee to establish Forum for redressal of grievances of consumers. The Forum has quasi judicial function in dealing with the complaints. Further remedy to consumers is provided by subsequent approach to the ombudsman, in event the consumer is aggrieved by decision of the Forum. It cannot be disputed that by this mechanism there is discharge of quasi judicial function.

(3.) He then draws attention to definitions sec. 2(aaa) and sub-sec. (1) in sec. 22C, both in Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. He submits, definition of 'Court' includes any other authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to exercise judicial or quasi judicial function. The Grievance Redressal Forum comes squarely within the meaning. He submits further, sec. 22C(1) mandates that any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any 'Court' make an application to the PLA for settlement of the dispute. There also cannot be any doubt raised that opposite party having had approached the Grievance Redressal Forum, has to be said as had approached 'Court', defined by sec. 2(aaa) in the Act.