LAWS(PAT)-2010-3-276

BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN Vs. NAND KUMAR S/O SRI BISHWANATH PANDIT, R/O NEAR CHECK POST, DIDARGANJ, P.S.-MALSALAMI PATNA

Decided On March 18, 2010
Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Through Its Chairman Appellant
V/S
Nand Kumar S/O Sri Bishwanath Pandit, R/O Near Check Post, Didarganj, P.S. -Malsalami Patna Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per Dipak Misra, CJ.These two appeals being interlinked and interconnected in view of the assail to the order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 11154 of 2009 from various spectrums by the consumer as well as the supplier, namely the Bihar State Electricity Board (for short, 'the Board'), they were heard analogously and are disposed of by a singular order.

(2.) Before we proceed to deal with the factual matrix and the contentions advanced at the Bar, we are inclined to state that a prefatory note is necessitous. The term 'Law' is employed and taken recourse to herald the incandescent attributes of civilization and, the advancement of society is conditioned by the appropriate legal evolution. Sometimes the law is conceived as' jus naturale' and, at times as 'jus civile' and at some other time it is equated with 'jus honorarium'. But the term 'jus' is always important. 'Jus' should never succumb to 'joss'. That is why it was said that the law is not the study of words alone, but a penetration into the study of nature within and nature without which are projected through words that have been the moving power of life. For that Simon pure reason, William Shakespeare said, 'The law hath not been dead though it hath slept'.

(3.) We have commenced with the aforesaid prologue as Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-consumer would contend with immense vehemence that the provision contained under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity, 'the Act') not only imposes an onerous condition for preferring the appeal and further the facts in the present case are such where the learned Single Judge should have been well advised to invoke the inherent and equitable jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and not relegated the consumer-appellant to appeal.