* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 304/2008
Date of Decision: November 07, 2008
Shri Kishan Kumar ......Appellant
Through : Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj,
Advocate
Versus
Manager (Business) & Another ......RespondentsBSES, Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Through : Mr. Mandeep Singh &
Mr. Vinaik, Advocates
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? Yes
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J : (Oral)
1. The appellant has instituted this appeal under Section 42
of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 against an order
passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum
(hereinafter referred to as “the Forum”) on 10.4.2008.
Admittedly, in passing the impugned orders, the Forum was
exercising powers under Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act,
2003.
FAO No.304/2008 Page 1 of 7
2. At the outset, counsel for the respondent has taken an
objection to the maintainability of the appeal itself. He submits
that since the impugned order was passed by the Forum under
Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, any appeal against
an order of that Forum can only lie with the Ombudsman in
terms of Section 42 (6) and (7) of that Act, and the institution
of the present appeal before this Court under Section 42 of the
Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 instead, is misconceived.
3. The essence of the argument put forward by the learned
counsel for the respondent is that Section 42 of the Delhi
Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 envisages an appeal only by a
person aggrieved of any decision or order of the Commission
passed under that Act. The expression, “commission”, has
also been defined under Section 2(c) of that Act to mean the
Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission mentioned under
Section 3 in part-II thereof. He submits that the impugned
decision in the instant matter is admittedly of the Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forum, which is an entirely different
body and cannot be substituted by the Delhi Electricity
Regulatory Commission, envisaged under Section 42 of the
Delhi Electricity Reform Act, 2000.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent
deserves to be accepted. In fact, Section 42 of the Delhi
Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 refers only to the Delhi
Electricity Regulatory Commission and none other. This is also
borne out from Section 3(1) of that Act which categorically
states that the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission shall
FAO No.304/2008 Page 2 of 7
hereinafter he referred to as “the commission” in that Act.
For that reason also, it follows that the reference to “the
commission” under Section 42 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms
Act, 2000, must necessarily be confined only to the Delhi
Electricity Regulatory Commission and cannot include within
its ambit the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum envisaged
under the Electricity Act 2003, more so, when the latter is a
completely different enactment altogether. In addition, even
Section 11 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000, makes it
very clear that functions of the Commission envisaged under
that Act are quite different from the functions carried out by
the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum established under
the Electricity Act, 2003.
5. Furthermore, Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003,
envisages establishment of a Forum for redressal of the
grievance of consumers. It is this forum which has admittedly
passed the impugned order in the case at hand. Learned
counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the order of a
Single Judge of this court passed on 14.1.2008 in Writ Petition
No.321/2008 filed by the appellant whereby this court
declined to entertain the writ petition in view of the
establishment of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum
under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. According to
learned counsel for the appellant, this order recognizes the
right of the appellant to file the instant appeal in case he is
dis-satisfied with the decision of the Consumer Grievance
Redressal Forum. He says that it is for that reason that the
FAO No.304/2008 Page 3 of 7
appellant has approached this court. To my mind, the
aforesaid order dated 14.01.2008 passed in Writ petition
No.321/2008, which has been annexed by the appellant, does
not lay down any such proposition. It merely declines to
entertain the writ petition in view of the existence of the
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum envisaged under
Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It further states that
keeping in view the nature of the dispute, it would be
appropriate that the appellant should approach the said
Forum. That order cannot be taken as a decision, direction or
permission to the appellant to institute this appeal before the
High Court even though no such appeal is available to him
under the Electricity Act, 2003.
6. Various tribunals and courts exercise specific jurisdiction
conferred on them under the law. In case a court or a tribunal
is vested with more than one jurisdiction, then in that event, it
is open to a party to invoke the appropriate jurisdiction. For
example, a Civil Court may have original jurisdiction as well as
testamentary and appellate jurisdiction. In that case, it is
open to the petitioner to invoke any of the jurisdictions that
vest in, and are therefore exercisable by, such a court. At the
same time, no petitioner can validly invoke jurisdiction of a
tribunal or a court inviting it to exercise any jurisdiction which
is not vested in that Court or tribunal in the first place. In this
case, admittedly, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42(5) of
the Electricity Act, 2003. At the same time, the jurisdiction
FAO No.304/2008 Page 4 of 7
which was exercised by that Forum was also the one which
was vested in it under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act. The
same Act further provides that in case anybody is aggrieved of
any order passed by this Forum, he can prefer an appeal to
the Ombudsman in terms of Sub-Sections 6 and 7 of Section
42 of the same Act. In this manner, the appellate jurisdiction
to hear appeals against orders of the Forum passed under
Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 lies with the
ombudsman only, and that is where a dis-satisfied party can
go. It is not open to a party who invokes the jurisdiction of the
Forum under Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 to file
an appeal against an order passed by that Forum under
Section 42 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 because
the later is a completely different statute and the appellate
forum envisaged thereunder is not available to a party, such
as the appellant herein, who is dis-satisfied by a decision
under the Electricity Act, 2003.
7. In this context, the observations of the Supreme Court in
the case of State of Haryana Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. &
Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 348 are apposite :-
“Right of appeal is the creature of the statute and has to
be exercised within the limits and according to the
procedure provided by law. It is filed for invoking the
powers of a superior court to redress the error of the
court below, if any. No right of appeal can be conferred
except by express words. An appeal, for its
maintainability, must have a clear authority of law.”
8. The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the forum under
Sections 42(5) and 42(6) under the Electricity Act, 2003 has
been set down by the Supreme Court in the case of
FAO No.304/2008 Page 5 of 7
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs.
Reliance Energy Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 381 wherein the Court
held that where the Statute concerned had created a proper
forum/ombudsman for the redressal of grievances of individual
consumers, the consumers can only resort to these bodies for
redressal of their grievances. The proper forum in such cases
is thus Section 42(5), and thereafter, Section 42(6) of the
Electricity Act, 2003.
9. The appellate jurisdiction conferred on this court by
Section 42 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 is quite
different. It is conferred for the purpose of hearing grievances
against orders that have been passed under the Delhi
Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 only, and that cannot be read to
mean that the appellate jurisdiction conferred under that Act
is also exercisable with regard to the orders passed under
Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is an entirely
different statute. Therefore, to my mind, the reliance of
learned counsel for the appellant on Section 42 of the Delhi
Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 is misconceived.
10. Looking to the grievance of the appellant, it is obvious
that even the original jurisdiction under the Delhi Electricity
Reforms Act, 2000 was not available to him. It is perhaps for
the reason that he did not approach the Commission under the
Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 and moved the Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forum under the Electricity Act, 2003,
instead.
FAO No.304/2008 Page 6 of 7
11. Since the dispute raised by the appellant did not fall
within the purview of the jurisdiction exercised by the Delhi
Electricity Regulatory Commission under the Delhi Electricity
Reforms Act, 2000 in the first place, there can be no question
of the right of appeal to the High Court envisaged under the
said Act being available to the appellant. The High Court
exercises appellate jurisdiction against the orders of various
forums including the Civil and Criminal Courts, as also against
the decisions of various bodies constituted under diverse
statutes. The scope and availability of the appellate
jurisdiction when exercised by the High Court in any manner
is circumscribed by the relevant statute under which the same
is envisaged.
12. For all these reasons, I find that this court does not have
jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and the same is not
maintainable on this ground.
13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
14. Since the matter has not been examined on merits, it
would be open to the appellant to pursue any other remedy to
which he may be entitled to as per law.
CM No.12841/2008
15. Since the appeal has been dismissed, this application
does not survive and is disposed of as such.
Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.
November 07, 2008
ib/OPN
FAO No.304/2008 Page 7 of 7