P.C.

1. Heard Shri S.V. Purohit, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. This Court, vide order, dated 26th June, 2014 issued notices to the respondents making returnable on 07th August, 2014. The record shows that the notices are duly served, but none appears on behalf of the respondents. The respondent No.1 is a formal party being the forum provided under the Act. Perusal of the order dated 22nd August, 2014 shows that this Court with a view to grant one more opportunity to the respondents, adjourned the petition making it clear that if none appears for the respondents on the next date, the petition would be heard finally and would be disposed on its own merit. On earlier date i.e. on 07.11.2014, the matter was adjourned for today. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is present. None appears for the respondents. The respondent No.2 is the contesting party. In spite of opportunities granted to the respondents, none appears for the contesting respondent No.2.

3. The petitioner-MSEDCL challenges the order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Amravati Zone, Akola in bunch of the complaints. The grievance raised by the respondent No.2-complainant was non supply of the energy. Perusal of the copy of the application placed on record at "Annexure-A" shows that the respondent No.2complainant approached the authority for supply of the energy with security deposit. As stated above, the grievance of non supply of energy in spite of necessary compliance, the petitioner-non-applicant before the forum submitted the say. The opposition to the complaint was on the grounds namely the complainant ought to have approached the primary forum namely Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGCR) for redressal of the grievance in view of the regulation 6.2. The issue raised was also sought to be decided being preliminary issue by the petitioner/non-applicant. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Amravati Zone, Akola, on considering the submission of the parties and on the basis of an order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman in the matter namely Representation No. 43/2011, allowed the complaint partly.

4. Shri Purohit, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the order impugned in the petition is unsustainable on more than one grounds. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was submitted by the petitioner that the preliminary forum for redressal of grievance is constituted and the complainant failed to approach the forum was a specific ground raised by misreading the provisions of regulation 6.2, the forum had arrived at a conclusion that it was not obligatory/ mandatory. Shri Purohit, the learned Counsel submits that this observation is unsustainable on the backdrop of the provisions of resolution 6.7 and further submits that on the backdrop of the reply by the petitioner, the forum ought to have cojointly read this provision of regulation 6.7 which reads thus :-

"6.7 The Forum shall not entertain a Grievance :

(a) unless the consumer has complied with the procedure under Regulation 6.2 and has submitted his Grievance in the specified form, to the Forum ;

(b) ....

(c) ....

(d) ... "

5. Thus the compliance of Regulation 6.2. is clearly mandatory and this fact is overlooked by the forum. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman is also misread by the CGRF. The other submission of Shri Purohit is that the same forum i.e. CGRF, Amravati Zone, Akola in another bunch of the matters raising an identical issue refused/rejected the prayer for providing the electric connection in view of the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman in Representation No. 43/2011. Thus, it is the submission of Shri Purohit that the same forum having the same constitution of the members took one view in one bunch of the complaints; whereas the same forum having the same constitution of the members took a diagonally opposite view in another bunch of the complaints. Therefore, the submission of Shri Purohit is that the order passed by the forum clearly shows an act of arbitrariness.

6. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the material placed on record as well as the copy of the order passed by the CGRF, Amravati Zone, Akola in bunch of Complaint Nos.36 to 41 and 42 to 53 of 2014 is placed on record and marked as "X" for identification. On the perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner raising the ground of tenability of the complaint before the CGRF, Amravati Zone, Akola, in view of Regulations 6.2 and 6.7, I find considerable merit in the submission of Shri Purohit. The forum, though refers the Regulations 6.4, 6.5 and 6.2, has failed to consider the relevant and material provisions i.e. Regulation 6.7.

The failure of the forum in considering the material Regulation 6.7 certainly made the observations of the forum, an erroneous observation to the extent that it was not mandatory and obligatory for the consumer to approach the initial forum i.e. Internal Grievance Redressal Cell. The other ground namely the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman in Representation No. 43/2011 is misread by the forum. There is also a considerable merit in the submission of Shri Purohit. Perusal of the order of the Electricity Ombudsman shows that the petitioner has to supply the energy considering the aspect that there is more demand and in comparison to the demand this supply would be limited one. Considering the aspect of financial assistance being provided by the State for infrastructure, the list i.e. the demand list of the consumers maintained by the petitioner, availability of the funds at the time of energy supply to those consumers waiting in queue, SOP Regulations 2005, the Electricity Ombudsman observed that it is beyond the purview of the forum of Ombudsman to give directions causing interference in the chronological order or in the seniority list. The prayer for giving such direction was rejected. The Electricity Ombudsman also rejected the prayer for compensation for the alleged delay in energy supply. On the backdrop of these observations, the forum committed an error of issuing directions to the petitioner by allowing the complaint partly.

7. It will be useful to refer to one more aspect. The Forum, Amravati Zone, Akola observed that the petitioner/nonapplicant gave illegal connection by charging more amount under non DDF RC Scheme keeping other application pending for connection. Shri Purohit, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that such connections which are known under the scheme (Deducted Distribution Facility Scheme (DDF) are the consumers of energy supply who bear the burden for the installation with claim of exclusive energy supply to such consumers. He submits that such energy supply has permitted as the consumer bears the financial burden of the infrastructure for energy supply. In the case of the complainant, it was a regular energy supply to the consumers who deposit the earnest deposit and not the consumers under DDF scheme. The learned Counsel submits that there was no material before the forum that the petitioner/non-applicant provided energy supply to the consumers of non DDF schemes as alleged and termed as an illegal connection of the complainants. Thus without having any material placed on record, the Consumer Forum, Amravati Zone, Akola arrived at an erroneous conclusion. Shri Purohit, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also vehemently submits that Clause-4 of the order of Forum directing the petitioner to initiate action against the erring officers or staff on the basis of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of M.K. Gupta .v. Lucknow Development Authority (reported in 1994 SCC (I), 243) is also unsustainable. The submission of Shri Purohit that the complainant himself had not alleged any lapse on the part of any specific officer or had not alleged any mischief towards any of the officer of the petitioner. In spite of this, the Forum directed the petitioner to initiate the action. The reliance placed for such direction on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.K. Gupta .v. Lucknow Development Authority (cited supra) is also misplaced is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Purohit, the learned Counsel submits that the order in the matter of M.K. Gupta .v. Lucknow Development Authority (cited supra), there was sufficient material and lapse on the part of the officers and on that backdrop, the direction was issued. Such is not the case in the present matter.

8. There is merit in the submission of Shri Purohit on this aspect also. True it is that if the forum wanted to give directions to the petitioner for initiating the action against the officer, the forum ought to have at least referred to those erring officer and the lapses on the part of such officer without fixing such responsibility on particular officer, a general direction is issued by the Forum. Such direction is also unsustainable. Moreover, if there was any lapse, the officer would have certainly entitled for opportunity of hearing before the initiation of such direction. Be that as it may, suffice to say that the direction of the Forum to the petitioner in that respect is also unsustainable.

9. There is also merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the forum took one view in the bunch of the complaints and took diagonally opposite view in another bunch of the complaints having identical issues involved in both this bunch of the complaints. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has made out a case.

10 Considering all the above referred aspects, in my opinion, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has made out a case. The order passed by the Forum impugned in the petition is unsustainable.

11. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the Forum on 15.03.2014 in Complaint Nos. 1 to 7, 8 to 18 and 19 to 29 of 2014 is quashed and set aside.