RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SUBHKARAN DEDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the opposite party-appellant against the majority order (Two members) dated 24.6.91 passed by the District Forum, Jodhpur in Complaint Case No.172/92. By the impugned order the complaint of the complainant-respondent was accepted and direction was given to the opposite party to give electric connection to the complainant in pursuance of the application dated 24.6.91 within 10 days from the date of the order. A further direction was given that the opposite party-appellant should not compel the complainant-respondent. to pay the outstanding amount standing in the name of Shri Vijaydan, account No. being A. G.67. The two members of the District Forum have passed this order. However the President of the District Forum by its order dated 20.6.91 (earlier than the majority order) dismissed the complaint and pronounced it on 20.6.91. That order is signed by the President of the District Forum as well as the two members stating that they do not agree with the order. In view of the conclusion to which we have arrived at we do not consider it necessary to give a resume of the facts leading to this appeal. Suffice it to mention that on 10.6.91 the President of the District Forum and one member, Anusuya Vyas heard the arguments and posted the complaint for orders on 17.6.91. Proceedings of 17.6.91 show that order was not written. One document was filed by the complainant and the complaint was posted for orders on 20.6.91. This is signed by the President as well as the two members. On 20.6.91 it is recorded that judgment has been separately written and pronounced and the complaint is dismissed. The other members did not agree with the judgment and so they will pronounce their separate order and for orders 24.6.91 was fixed. The two members on 24.6.91 have passed the order as stated hereinabove and pronounced it in open District Forum. It is signed by the two members. It may be mentioned that on 10.6.91 when the arguments were heard by the President and one member Anusuya Vyas, there is nothing in the order sheet to show that Shri Ram Rakh Vyas, member was present on that day. On 20.6.91 after writing the order it was pronounced and the complaint was posted for orders on 20.6.91. There is a recital that the complaint is dismissed and the two members wrote that they don't agree with the order. For writing a separate order 24.6.91 was fixed though on 20.6.91 the order was pronounced dismissing the complaint signed by the President and the two members stating that they don't agree with the order passed on that day.0n 24.6.91,4 days after the order disagreeing with the order dated 20.6.91 was pronounced whereby the complaint was accepted and certain directions were given in favour of the complainant. The order sheet dated 24.6.91 is not signed by the President and it is signed by the two members. From what has been stated above the following facts emerge: (1) that the arguments were not heard by Shri R. R. Vyas, member on 10.6.91 who passed the order dated 24.6.91. (2) hat the order dismissing the complaint was pronounced on 20.6.91 which is signed by all the three members but the two members wrote that they do not agree with the order and they will write a separate order and for separate order they fixed the date as 24.6.91. On 24.6.91 dissenting order (majority order) was pronounced granting some reliefs to the complainant.

(2.) The District Forum mismanaged the proceedings of 10.6.91, 20.6.91 and 24.6.91 and this is in utter disregard of the provisions contained in Sec.14 (2) of the Act. Secs.14 (2) and (2a) of the Act after amendment read as under: - " (2) Every proceeding referred to in Subsection (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting together: provided that where the member, for any reason, is unable to conduct the proceeding till it is completed, the President and the other member shall conduct such proceeding de novo. (2a) Every order made by the District Forum under Sub-section (1) shall be signed by its President and the member or members who conducted the proceeding: provided that where the proceeding is conducted by the President and one member and they differ on any point or points, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to the other member for hearing on such point or points and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of that other member".

(3.) The order passed on 24.6.91 by the two members is bad in law for the simple reason that Shri Ram Rakh Vyas who did not hear the arguments on 10.6.91 became a party to the order. He was not the member of the Bench which heard the arguments. Mr. Ram Rakh Vyas did not hear the arguments on 10.6.91. The order passed by him is invalid. A perusal of Sub-sec. (2a) of Sec.14 clearly shows that every order made by the District Forum has to be signed by the President and the member/members who conducted the proceedings. The order dated 20.6.91 by which the complaint was dismissed is, signed by the President and the two members. However the two members wrote that they do not agree with the order. It is surprising that how the order of the President could be pronounced on 20.6.91 as it was not a District Forum's order. These are the various infirmities in the orders passed dated 20.6.91 and 24.6.91. However, the majority order which is in favour of the complainant cannot bind the opposite party-appellant for the reasons aforesaid as Mr. Ram Rakh Vyas was not a member of the Bench which heard the arguments. The principles underlying O XLI, R.34 C. P. C. can be availed of in such a situation.