EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL Vs. CHAIRPERSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the award dated 12.06.2012 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat Mayurbhanj, Baripada in P.L.A. Case No.5 of 2012 under Annexure-3 wherein the application filed by opposite party No.2-Suresh Chandra Acharya has been allowed in part on the ground that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction/authority.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition in a nutshell are that present opp. party no.2 is a consumer of electricity under the petitioner-Company vide Consumer No. BG 2-611C. Opp. Party No.2's service line was converted to commercial category from domestic since long. . His service line was disconnected on 21.2.1997 due to non-payment of arrear dues of Rs.15,533/-. After disconnection of power supply on 21.2.1997, petitioners went on sending electricity bill as a result of which the arrear increased to Rs.1,33,830/- up to November, 2003. Thereafter opp. party no.2 approached the then Bijuli Adalat, which passed an order on 8.1.2004 in B.A. No.57 of 2004 directing S.D.O., Electrical, Betanoti( NESCO) to revise the energy bill deducting the amount claimed for the alleged disconnection period. On the same day, i.e., 8.1.2004 the opp. party no.2 deposited an amount of Rs. 1,000/- and was directed to pay the revised arrear amount in full before the power supply is restored to his premises. The consumer-opp. party no.2 also deposited Rs.5,000/- on 29.3.2005 towards part payment of the arrear bill. Despite the same, neither the power supply was restored nor revised bill was issued or change of tariff was done. Ultimately on 25.2.2006, reconnection was made after deposit of Rs.1050/-, which includes CRF of Rs.50/-, but the tariff was not changed though he deposited Rs.100/- on 18.7.2006 for the said purpose. Again for non-payment of arrear dues, notice for disconnection of power supply was issued and after receipt of the notice for disconnection of power supply against the arrear bill of Rs.1,83,102/- up to February, 2012, the opposite party No.2-Consumer approached the Permanent Lok Adalat ( for short, "PLA") in PLA Case No.5 of 2012 with a prayer to implement the order of Bijuli Adalat dated 08.01.2004 passed in Case No. BA 57 of 2004; to change the tariff from commercial to domestic with effect from 18.07.2008; to pay a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh as compensation for mental agony, harassment and trouble; and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation. Pursuant to notice issued to the petitioners in PLA Case No.5 of 2012, the present petitioners remained present on 07.04.2012 and filed a memo stating therein that they were unable to attend the PLA as they are extremely busy in settlement of the disputes of various consumers under the One Time Settlement Scheme which was going on then. They also suggested to advise the consumer to avail the benefit of exemption of certain amount under the said One Time Settlement Scheme and accordingly requested to drop the PLA Case No.5 of 2012. Despite the same, the PLA has proceeded in absence of the petitioners and only after hearing opp. party no.2-consumer has passed the impugned order as a common law forum. In the said award dated 12.06.2012, the PLA while directing the petitioner-Company to revise the electricity bill of the consumer by changing tariff structure from commercial to domestic with effect from 18.07.2006 and to reconnect the electric service line to the consumer's premises within seven days, has also directed the petitionerCompany to pay Rs.30,000/- only to the applicant-consumer towards compensation for the alleged mental agony and harassment within a period of two months from the date of award. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. S.C.Dash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-Company submitted that the impugned order has been passed ex parte relating to a billing dispute of opp. party no.2-consumer of electricity under the petitioner-Company. The impugned award under Annexure-3 is bad in law and violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, 'Act, 1987') as well as the Odisha Lok Adalat Rules, 1990 (for short, 'Rules, 1990'). The PLA, Baripada has proceeded in a wrong, erroneous and arbitrary manner to decide the complaint against the petitioners. The PLA has exceeded its limit, jurisdiction and power to decide the case by ignoring guidelines and procedures as contained under Sections 20 and 22 of the Act, 1987. PLA is not empowered to dispose of a matter of such nature as has been done in this case. In the present case, the impugned award has not been passed on any compromise or settlement. The impugned order is contrary to the provisions of Section 22C of the Act, 1987. The PLA has failed to take recourse to the mechanism of conciliation. One of the most essential ingredients of the conciliation proceeding is that nobody would be compelled or forced to take part therein. It is voluntary in nature. The PLA cannot proceed to decide a case where the parties are not agreeing for settlement of dispute by negotiation, conciliation or mediation. The procedure adopted by the PLA is not binding one like that followed in the arbitration proceeding. The PLA cannot simply adopt the role of an arbitrator whose award could be the subject matter of challenge. In absence of consent in writing by both the parties, the PLA has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute between parties under sub-section (8) of Section-22C of the Act, 1987. In support of his contention, Mr. Dash placed reliance upon the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Deputy Divisional Manager, Shillong & Anr. Vs. Smt. Jharna Ghosh, 2011 AIR(Gau) 205 judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in the cases of Sandip Ekka vs. Selesta Kerketa, 2011 AIR(Jhar) 130 Branch Manager, Hazaribag Branch, National Insurance Company Co. Ltd. v. Anand Prakash Handa, 2012 AIR(Jhar) 6 Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Usha Sinha & Ors., 2011 AIR(Jhar) 5 Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi v. Urmila Devi & Ors., 2010 AIR(Jhar) 133