COMMON CAUSE Vs. DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - When this Case was argued in part before us on 28th February, 1992, we had suggested that Mr. Shourie, who had already prepared a note on the basis of which he submitted that many of the problems of the consumers could be solved by D.E.S.U., if the suggestions in the note were to be accepted, may have a meeting with officers of D.E.S.U. at the highest level and hold discussions concerning the suggestions contained in his note in order to evolve, if possible, an agreed formula for rectification of the deficiencies that are presently alleged to exist in the functioning of DESU in relation to incorrect billings, insufficiency in the number of meter readers, defective meters and the great difficulties said to be experienced by consumers in the matter of remittance of bills.

(2.) The Counsel appearing on behalf of the DESU welcomed the suggestion for holding joint discussions and assured this Commission that arrangements will immediately be made for holding such discussions with Mr. Shourie. DESU being represented by its Officers at the highest level. In the light of the said assurance, we adjourned the hearing of this case to this date in the hope that it might be possible for the parties to arrive at some agreed formula for setting right whatever deficiencies might be existing in the working of the DES U in relation to the matters enumerated above.

(3.) Unfortunately, when the matter was taken up for hearing today, it was represented before us by Mr. Shourie that when he attended the office of the General Manager of the DESU on 6th of February, 1992 in response to an invitation issued to him by the General Manager for taking part in discussions as contemplated in the Order passed by this Commission, the treatment meted out to him was so discourteous and rude that he had to walk out of the meeting in disgust on account of the attitude of hostility allegedly displayed towards him by the General Manager, who, it appears, was not prepared to hold any meaningful discussions whatsoever concerning any of the suggestions contained in the note which had been circulated by Mr. Shourie. As to what took place at the meeting of the 6lh February, has been set out in detail by Mr. Shourie in a letter which he addressed to Mr. Ashok Pradhan, General Manager, DESU on 8th February, 1992,a copy of which was placed before us by Mr. Shourie. The said letter is taken on record and it will form part of the record of the proceedings of this Commission. The contents of the letter make distressing reading. Mr. Shourie had gone before the General Manager of DESU pursuant to the suggestion incorporated in the order passed by this Commission and he stood virtually in the position of an emissary from this Commission. The contents of the letter disclose that he had been subjected to a highly objectionable kind of treatment which is totally inconsistent with his dignity and self-respect and had been denied even the ordinary courtesy which was due to any invitee at the hands of a person occupying the responsible position of the Chief Executive of an important Public Sector Undertaking. We consider that the meeting out of such objectionable treatment to Mr. Shourie, who had gone to the Office of the General Manager in pursuance of the observations and suggestion contained in the Order passed by this Commission, constitutes an affront to the dignity and authority of this Commission.