MOHAN LAL Vs. UHBVN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel appearing on both sides on condonation and admission.

(2.) The delay in filing the revision is of 57 days. The same has been explained by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had taken recourse to review before the State Commission, but the review application before the State Commission was dismissed for want of legal provisions. It is now well settled that the State Commission has no power of review. In spite of the settled position, the petitioner had taken recourse to remedy in which time was spent. Be that as it may, taking into consideration that the matter requires consideration on merits, I am inclined to condone the delay of 57 days subject to, however, payment of cost of Rs. 5,000 by the petitioner to the respondent.

(3.) On the question of admission, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Commission two judgments of this Commission, namely, Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Anwar Ali, 2008 2 CPJ 284, and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Megh Raj & Ors., 2008 4 CPJ 11 On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Anwar Ali , as well as the judgment of the Hon ble Single Judge dated 31.5.2004 in Sohan Lal v. North Delhi Power Ltd. & Ors., 2004 113 DLT 547, and also the judgment of Delhi High Court in judgment dated 25.9.2008 in Sh. B.L. Kantroo v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., 2008 154 DLT 56 RFA (OS) No. 12/2008 - .