{"id":40986,"date":"2010-05-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-01T00:00:34","modified_gmt":"2017-11-30T18:30:34","slug":"deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Deputy vs Jagrut on 13 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Deputy vs Jagrut on 13 May, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/8264\/2009\t 1\/ 51\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 8264 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 8265 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 8974 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 12319 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9387 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9533 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 645 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 12461 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9042 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 10678 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 13374 of 2009\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 13376 of 2009  \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n \n \n=========================================================\n<\/pre>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
To be
\n\t\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the
\n\t\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
\n\t\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n<\/p>\n
=========================================================<\/p>\n
DEPUTY
\nENGINEER & 1 – Petitioner(s)<\/p>\n
Versus<\/p>\n
JAGRUT
\nNAGARIK & 2 – Respondent(s)<\/p>\n
=========================================================<\/p>\n
Appearance
\n:\n<\/p>\n
Special
\nCivil Application Nos.8264, 8265, 8974, 9387, 9533 of 2009<\/p>\n
MS
\nLILU K BHAYA for
\nPetitioner(s) : 1 – 2.\n<\/p>\n
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 –\n<\/p>\n
3.
\nMR SANDIP C SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1   2.\n<\/p>\n
Special
\nCivil Application No.12319 of 2009<\/p>\n
MR
\nSN SINHA for Petitioner : 1-3<\/p>\n
MR
\nNAYAN D PAREKH for Respondent : 1 <\/p>\n
Special
\nCivil Application No.645 of 2009<\/p>\n
MR
\nSN SINHA for Petitioner : 1 <\/p>\n
MR
\nJV BHAIRAVIA for Respondent : 1 <\/p>\n
Special
\nCivil Application No.12461 of 2009<\/p>\n
MR
\nSP HASURKAR for Petitioner : 1 <\/p>\n
MR
\nMITUL K SHELAT for Respondent : 2 <\/p>\n
Special
\nCivil Application Nos.9042, 10678, 13374 to 13376 of 2009<\/p>\n
MR
\nPREMAL R JOSHI for Petitioner : 1<\/p>\n
MR
\nSANDIP C SHAH for Respondent : 1-2<\/p>\n
MR
\nHARSHIT S TOLIA for Respondent : 3 <\/p>\n
MR
\nPARTH S TOLIA for Respondent : 3 <\/p>\n
=========================================================<\/p>\n
CORAM
\n\t\t\t:\n<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ<\/p>\n
Date
\n: 13\/05\/2010
\nCAV JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
\tSince common issue is
\n\tinvolved in all these petitions and they are heard together, this
\n\tcommon judgment and order is passed in all these petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe only issue involved
\n\tin all these petitions is with regard to the jurisdiction of the
\n\tConsumer Dispute Redressal Forum to entertain the complaint filed by
\n\tthe consumer against the electricity company with regard to supply
\n\tof electricity and\/or Bill thereof.  The Consumer
\n\tDispute Redressal Forum has entertained all these complaints and
\n\tgranted appropriate relief to the consumers against which the
\n\tdifferent electricity companies have filed all these petitions
\n\tbefore this Court challenging the decision of the Consumer Dispute
\n\tRedressal Forum for entertaining these complaints. In some of the
\n\tcases, the Electricity Companies have firstly challenged the order
\n\tof the Forum before the Commission and after confirmation of the
\n\torder of the Forum by the Commission, petitions are filed before
\n\tthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t Since the legal issue
\n\tinvolved in all these petitions is in a very narrow compass, facts
\n\tof all these petitions are not required to be narrated in detail and
\n\thence for the sake of convenience and easy reference, the facts are
\n\ttaken from Special Civil Application No.12319 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is the case of the
\n\tpetitioner that the respondent   consumer has been given
\n\tindustrial connection for running flour mill. In course of  a meter
\n\treplacement drive the meter of the respondent was replaced on
\n\t28.1.2008 and sent to the laboratory at Junagadh for joint
\n\tlaboratory inspection. The respondent was given notice to remain
\n\tpresent for inspection on 24.7.2007, 31.7.2009 and 7.8.2009.  But
\n\tthe respondent did not appear and hence laboratory inspection was
\n\tcarried out in his absence on 4.9.2009.  It was found during the
\n\tcourse of inspection that MMB Seals and TC and TCC square are
\n\ttampered with. It was also noticed that the MMB Seals had been
\n\trefixed.  Moreover, male ad female parts of the TC had severe
\n\tscratches. There were marks of scratches and of sparking on terminal
\n\tblock B-Phase current coil was found burnt. With this evidence, it
\n\twas clear that the consumer was using electricity dishonestly, which
\n\tis an offence under Section-135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  The
\n\tsupplementary bill of Rs.66,969.58 for power theft was accordingly
\n\tserved on the respondent as per provisions of the Supply Code of the
\n\tGujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission constituted under
\n\tSection-50 of the Act. FIR was lodged at GEB Police Station, Rajkot
\n\tat No.II-2594\/2009 on 12.10.2009.\n<\/p>\n
\tBeing aggrieved by the
\n\tsaid supplementary bill the respondent filed complaint before the
\n\tConsumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Rajkot on 8.10.2009 and filed
\n\tapplication Ex.5 for interim relief against disconnection.  The
\n\tDistrict Forum on 16.10.2009 granted interim relief and issued
\n\tdirection against disconnection of electricity supply to the
\n\trespondent on condition that the respondent consumer shall deposit
\n\t50% of the amount of the supplementary bill and also compounding
\n\tcharges of Rs.10,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is this order of the
\n\tConsumer Dispute Redressal Forum which is challenged in the present
\n\tpetition. Similarly in all other petitions the orders passed by the
\n\tConsumer Dispute Redressal Forum and\/or Commission are being
\n\tchallenged by the different electricity Companies.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. S.N.Sinha, Ms. Nilu
\n\tBhaya, Mr.Premal Joshi and Mr.S.P.Hasurkar, learned advocates are
\n\tappearing for the petitioners   electricity Companies.  The main
\n\tsubmission of the learned advocates appearing for the electricity
\n\tcompanies are that the Parliament enacted the Electricity Act, 2003
\n\twhich came into effect from 10.6.2003. The preamble of the said Act
\n\treads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 An
\n\t\tAct to consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission,
\n\t\tdistribution, trading and use of electricity and generally for
\n\t\ttaking measures conducive to development of electricity industry,
\n\t\tpromoting competition therein, protecting interest of consumers and
\n\t\tsupply of electricity to all areas, rationalisation of electricity
\n\t\ttariff, ensuring transparent policies    regarding subsidies,
\n\t\tpromotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies,
\n\t\tconstitution of Central Electricity Authority, Regulatory
\n\t\tCommissions and establishment of Appellate Tribunal and for matters
\n\t\tconnected therewith or incidental thereto.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhile making the
\n\taforesaid Act the Parliament has sought to consolidate all previous
\n\tlaws with respect to generation and transmission of electricity and
\n\thas provided for more methodical and scientific self-contained Code.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe different electricity
\n\tcompanies are licensees, who have been issued licenses by the
\n\tappropriate Commission for transmission and distribution of
\n\telectricity.  The relationship between the electricity companies as
\n\tlicensees under Section. 2(39) and the  consumer  within the
\n\tmeaning Section 2(15) of the Act are, therefore, governed by the Act
\n\tof 2003.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe aforesaid Act of 2003
\n\tfor the first time provide Code called  The Electricity Supply
\n\tCode  contemplated under Section-50 of the Act. The said
\n\tSection-50 of the Act reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 50.
\n\t\tThe Electricity Supply Code :-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t The
\n\t\tState Commission shall specify an Electricity Supply Code to
\n\t\tprovide for recovery of electricity charges, intervals for billing
\n\t\tof electricity charges, disconnection of supply of electricity for
\n\t\tnon-payment thereof, restoration of supply of electricity,
\n\t\ttampering, distress or damage to electrical plat, electric lines or
\n\t\tmeter, entry of distribution licensee or any person acting on his
\n\t\tbehalf for disconnecting supply and removing
\n\t\tthe meter, entry for replacing, altering or maintaining electric
\n\t\tlines or electrical plant or meter.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe State Government has
\n\tmade the Electricity Supply Code in exercise of the powers under
\n\tSection-50 of the Act. As it is evident on perusal of the Code, the
\n\tsaid Code statutorily provides for the cases, inter alia, with
\n\tregard to the tampering of electric lines or meter and manner and
\n\tmethod of collection of electricity charges. The Electricity Act of
\n\t2003 defines the term  unauthorised use of electricity  and
\n\tprovides for investigation and enforcement under Section 126 and 127
\n\tof the Act. The term  theft of electricity  is defined under
\n\tSection-135 of the Act and  theft of electric lines and materials
\n\tis defined under Section-136 of the Act. The offence committed under
\n\tSection-135 of the Act is required to be tried by the Special Court
\n\tconstituted under the Act.  In the State of Gujarat Special Courts
\n\ttrying the offences under Section-135 of the Act and other penal
\n\tprovisions of the Act, are already constituted and are functioning.
\n\tThe said Courts are constituted under Sections 153 ad 154 of the
\n\tAct, which have powers of Courts of Sessions under Section-155 of
\n\tthe Act, against whose order and decision, Appeal and revision are
\n\tprovided before this Court. The Electricity Act of 2003 specifically
\n\tprovides for a statutory provisions ousting the jurisdiction  of
\n\tCivil Courts and all other authorities under Section-145 of the Act.
\n\tSection-173, 174 and 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003 give an
\n\toverriding effect over all other enactments.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Gujarat Electricity
\n\tRegulatory Commission in exercise of its powers conferred under
\n\tSection-181 read with Section 42(5) of the Act, has framed
\n\tRegulations for the purpose of establishment of Forums for redressal
\n\tof grievances of the consumers which are known as  Gujarat
\n\tElectricity Regulatory Commission (Establishment of Forums for
\n\tredressal of grievances of consumers) Regulations, 2004. It is
\n\tevident from the perusal of the said statutory Regulations, that the
\n\tterm  complainant  the term  complaint  and the term
\n\t grievances  are very widely worded under Clause 2(c)(d) and (g)
\n\tof the Regulations. The said Forums statutorily constituted, are
\n\talready established and are functioning. The said forums are also
\n\tconferred with powers of granting temporary injunction under
\n\tChapter-IV of the aforesaid Regulations. Similarly in exercise of
\n\tpowers conferred under Section-181 read with Section-42(6) of the
\n\tAct, the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Establishment of
\n\tOmbudsmen) Regulations, 2004 are framed.  This statutory scheme of
\n\tthe Act and the Special Forums constituted statutorily by the Act
\n\twould make it clear that after enactment of a special law, the
\n\tgeneral provisions made under the Consumers Protection Act, 1986
\n\tstand impliedly repealed in so far as the questions which can be
\n\tgone into by special machinery provided under the special Act are
\n\tconcerned. A bare perusal of the above stated provisions of the Act
\n\tmakes it clear that it gives supremacy to the said Act over all
\n\tother enactments and, therefore,  the provisions of the Consumers
\n\tProtection Act, 1986 would not apply to the cases covered by or
\n\tunder the provisions of the Act of 2003.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe further submission of
\n\tthe learned advocates appearing for the electricity companies is
\n\tthat Section-3 of the Consumer Protection Act also recognizes that
\n\tthe provisions of the Consumers Protection Act are in addition to
\n\tand not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the
\n\ttime being in force. When a special enactment is made by the
\n\tParliament to deal with the specific offences\/cases of mal-practice
\n\twith regard to the said specific enactment and specific Forums are
\n\tconstituted to deal with the disputes arising under the Act, the
\n\tjurisdiction of the Forums constituted under the provisions of the
\n\tConsumers Protection Act are ousted by implication. Unless and until
\n\tthe question of jurisdiction of Forum is examined, interpreted and
\n\tadjudicated in the above said manner, it is not possible to
\n\tharmonize the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 and the Electricity
\n\tAct, 2003.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe proceedings under
\n\tSections 126, 127 and 135 of the Act of 2003 are initiated by the
\n\tlicensees for redressal of their own grievances and, therefore, also
\n\tsuch questions shall necessarily be out of the purview of the Forums
\n\tconstituted under the Consumers Protection Act. Since the
\n\tElectricity Act, 2003 is a special Act, general provisions should
\n\tyield to the special provisions as held consistently by the Apex
\n\tCourt. In view of the specific provisions contained in the
\n\tElectricity Act, 2003 the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum has no
\n\tpower to adjudicate the question of its own jurisdiction, since it
\n\tis bound by the decision taken by the National Consumers Disputes
\n\tRedressal Commission reported in 2008 (II) CPJ, 284 and 2008 (IV)
\n\tCPJ, 11 where the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission
\n\thas held that the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 statutorily
\n\tprepared under Section-50 of the Act and the aforesaid statutory
\n\tRegulations do not stand for consideration of the Commission. While
\n\texercising its jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of
\n\tIndia this Court is not bound by the view taken by the Commission
\n\tunder the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the
\n\tpetitioners are justified in approaching this Court praying for writ
\n\tof prohibition.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn support of the
\n\tsubmissions canvassed by the learned counsels appearing for the
\n\tElectricity Companies, reliance is placed on the decision of the
\n\tApex Court in the case of  Haryana State Electricity Board Vs.
\n\tMam Chand, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 649,
\n\twherein the Court was concerned with the scope and extent of the
\n\tbeneficial consumer jurisdiction, particularly with regard to
\n\ttechnical subjects falling under provisions such as the Electricity
\n\tAct, 2003. Under Section 2(c) of the 1986 Act  complaint  is
\n\tdefined to mean allegation in writing made by a complainant that the
\n\tservice provider has charged for the services, a price in excess of
\n\tthe price fixed under the law for the time being in force.  Under
\n\tSection 2(d)  consumer  is defined to mean any person who hires
\n\tor avails of any services for a consideration
\n\twhich has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised.
\n\tUnder Section-2(g) of the said 1986 Act the word  deficiency  is
\n\tdefined to mean any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy
\n\tin the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required
\n\tto be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or
\n\tunder a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The word
\n\t goods  is defined under Section 2(i) to mean goods as defined
\n\tin the Sale of Goods Act, 1930,  Service  also defined under
\n\tSection 2(o) of the said 1986 Act to mean service of any
\n\tdescription which is made available to users in connection with
\n\tbanking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of
\n\telectrical energy, entertainment,  etc. Therefore, supply of
\n\telectric energy by the Nigam falls under Section 2(o) of the said
\n\t1986 Act. However, the question which arises for determination and
\n\twhich has not been decided
\n\tis:  Whether the beneficial consumer jurisdiction extends to
\n\tdetermination of tortious acts and liability arising therefrom by
\n\tthe Consumer Forum. The assessment of the duty for unauthorised use
\n\tof electricity,                                                     <\/p>\n
\t                        tampering of meters, distribution of meters
\n\tand calibration of electric current are matters of technical nature
\n\twhich cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum. Under the Electricity
\n\tAct, 2003 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded. Under
\n\tSection-145 of the said 2003 Act the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
\n\tto entertain suits in respect of matters falling under Section-126
\n\tis expressly barred. These are matters of assessment.  The said 2003
\n\tAct is a complete code by itself and, therefore, in matters of
\n\tassessment of electricity bills the Consumer Forum should have
\n\tdirected the respondent to move before the competent authority under
\n\tthe Electricity Act, 2003 read with the rules framed thereunder
\n\teither expressly or by incorporation.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Court was, therefore, of the view that all these issues raised
\n\ton behalf of the Nigam require deeper consideration by the State
\n\tCommission.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance
\n\tis also placed on the decision of Apex
\n\tCourt in the case of  Accounts Officer, Jharkhand
\n\tState Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Anwar Ali, reported in AIR
\n\t2008 SC 164,
\n\twherein the question was as to whether the consumer of electricity
\n\tcan be covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
\n\twherein while setting aside the order passed by the National
\n\tCommission the Court remitted
\n\tthe matter to the National Commission giving direction to record a
\n\tpositive finding on the aspect, as to whether consumer of
\n\telectricity is covered by the definition
\n\tof Consumer as defined in Section 2(o) of the Act, 1986.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance
\n\tis also placed on the decision of the
\n\tApex Court in the case of  Maharashtra  State
\n\tElectricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Vs. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd.,
\n\treported in AIR 2008 SC 1042,
\n\twherein it is observed that complaints of individual consumers are
\n\toutside jurisdiction of State Commission. Separate
\n\tForum for redressal of individual consumer’s grievances has been
\n\tcreated under Section-42 of the Electricity Act, 2003. All
\n\tindividual consumers’ grievances should therefore, be raised before
\n\tsuch Forum. Thus, a complete machinery has been provided under
\n\tSection-42(5) and 42(6) for redressal of grievances of individual
\n\tconsumers. Hence wherever
\n\ta Forum\/Ombudsman have been created the consumers can only resort to
\n\tthese bodies for redressal of their grievances. The Court has also
\n\treferred to Section-86 of the Act which
\n\tlays down the function of the State Commission. Sub-section (1)(f)
\n\tof the said Section lays down the adjudicatory function of the State
\n\tCommission which does not encompass
\n\twithin its domain complaints of individual
\n\tconsumers. It only provides that the Commission can adjudicate upon
\n\tthe disputes between the licensees and generating companies and to
\n\trefer any such dispute for arbitration. This does not include in it
\n\tan individual
\n\tconsumer. The proper forum for that is Section 42(5) and,
\n\tthereafter, Section 42(6) read with Regulations of 2003.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance is also placed
\n\ton the decision of the Delhi High Court in  CM(M) No.46 of 2007
\n\tin CM(M) No.46 of 2007, wherein it is observed that,
\n\tit is with deep anguish that this Court notes the continuous conduct
\n\tof the Consumer Forums in proceeding with such matters despite the
\n\torders passed by various Courts from time to time. It is trite to
\n\tsay that no Consumer Forum can pass an order contrary to the orders
\n\tpassed by the High Courts or in breach thereof. Even subsequently
\n\tinterim orders have been passed by the Court and this Court is being
\n\tburdened with numerous litigations only arising from this attitude
\n\tof Consumer Forums since Consumer Forums are not desisting from
\n\ttaking actions where it has been held that Consumer Forums have no
\n\tjurisdiction. The Court has issued the general direction to the
\n\teffect that in matters of theft of electricity and dishonest
\n\tabstraction of energy in case the Consumer Forums pass any order,
\n\tthe electricity companies will not be liable to give effect to the
\n\tsame. The Court further directed the State Commission and the
\n\tConsumer Forums not to pass any interim orders in respect of
\n\tcomplaints of consumer     where issue of direct theft of
\n\telectricity or dishonest abstraction of electrical energy is
\n\talleged.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance is also placed
\n\ton the decision of  Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (
\n\tin Petition No.950 of 2008) wherein it is observed that the
\n\tpower and the jurisdiction to hear cases under Section-135 of the
\n\tElectricity Act, 2003 is only with special Court established under
\n\tSection-153 of the Electricity Act, 2003.\n<\/p>\n
\tEven in the case of
\n\t Jagmohan Mehatabsingh Gujaral and others Vs. State of
\n\tMaharashtra, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 629, it is held that
\n\tlarge-scale theft of electricity is a very alarming problem found by
\n\tall the State Electricity Boards in our country which is causing
\n\tloss to the State revenue running in hundreds of crores of rupees
\n\tevery year.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance is also placed
\n\ton the decision of this Court in  C.R.A. No.28 of 2010 filed by
\n\t PGVCL Vs. Smt. Bhartiben Aniruddhsinh Jadeja
\n\t against an interim order in Complaint No.92 of 2010, of
\n\tConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot, wherein
\n\tCommission has held that this is not a case of simple theft but it
\n\tis technical modus operandi of committing theft of electricity in
\n\tmass in Saurastra region. The Commission has further held that in
\n\tcase of theft, Special Court has jurisdiction to determine the Civil
\n\tliability against consumer. District Forum has only jurisdiction to
\n\tconduct the case against electricity company where there is
\n\tdeficiency in service but not in case of theft of electricity. The
\n\tCommission has held that only Special Court has jurisdiction and
\n\tForum has no jurisdiction to conduct such type of cases which can be
\n\tdisposed of summarily.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the basis of the above
\n\tjudgments of this Court as well as Apex Court as well as the orders
\n\tpassed by the Regulatory Commission, it was strongly urged before
\n\tthe Court that all these orders passed by the Consumer Dispute
\n\tRedressal Forum and\/or Commission deserve to be quashed and set
\n\taside as they have no jurisdiction to entertain such complaints
\n\tfiled by the consumer.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tOn behalf of the
\n\trespondents, learned advocates Mr.Sandip Shah, Mr.J.V. Bhairavia and
\n\tMr.Mitul Shelat appeared and strongly opposed all these petitions.
\n\tIn Special Civil Application No.9042 of 2009 though Mr.Harshid Tolia
\n\tappears on behalf of the respondent No.3, he supported the case of
\n\tthe petitioner   electricity company as he is representing the
\n\tlandlord and his grievance is against the tenants being respondent
\n\tNos.1 and 2 in the said petition. The main submissions canvassed on
\n\tbehalf of the respondents, while opposing all these petitions are
\n\tthat the comparative study of Electricity Act, 2003 and Consumer
\n\tProtection Act, 1986, nowhere reveals any specific exclusion of the
\n\tjurisdiction of Consumer Courts to deal with the problems of supply
\n\tof electric energy to customers \/ consumers. It is well settled
\n\tprinciple of law that there has to be specific exclusion of
\n\tjurisdiction of any authority or any court by specific provision in
\n\tthat behalf. Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 specifically
\n\texcludes jurisdiction of Civil Courts. But there is no exclusion of
\n\tjurisdiction of Consumer Courts established under Consumer
\n\tProtection Act. It cannot be said that since Civil Court’s
\n\tjurisdiction is ousted, by necessary implication jurisdiction of
\n\tConsumer Courts is also ousted. On the contrary Section 3 of the
\n\tConsumer Protection Act makes it clear that the said Act is not in
\n\tderogation of any other law. The provisions of this Act shall be in
\n\taddition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law
\n\tfor the time being in force. When Consumer Protection Act, 1996 was
\n\tintroduced, earlier provisions of Electricity Act, 1910 and
\n\tElectricity Supply Act were in force. Section 2(1)(d)(ii) defines
\n\t consumer  means any person   who hires or avails of any
\n\tservices for consideration which has been paid or promised. Section
\n\t2(1)(o) defines  service  means service of any description which
\n\tis made available to potential users and includes, but not limited
\n\tto, the provisions of facilities in connection with banking,
\n\tfinancing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or
\n\tother energy…. etc. Hence, it includes services of electrical
\n\tenergy. Section 2(1)(g) defines  deficiency in service  means
\n\tany fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality,
\n\tnature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained
\n\tby or under any law for the time being in force or has been
\n\tundertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or
\n\totherwise in relation to any service. It is, therefore, clear that
\n\tConsumer Courts established under Consumer Protection Act can
\n\tentertain and decide the dispute between the parties relating to
\n\tdeficiency in service relating to supply of electrical energy.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe provisions of
\n\tSections 173, 174 and 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003 make it clear
\n\tthat legislature was aware regarding jurisdiction of consumer courts
\n\tunder the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and hence, it is
\n\tprovided under Section 173 of the Act that nothing contained in this
\n\tAct or any rule or regulation made thereunder or any instrument
\n\thaving effect by virtue of this Act, rule or regulation shall have
\n\teffect in so far as it is inconsistent with any other provisions of
\n\tConsumer Protection Act, 1986.  Section 174 of the Act shall have an
\n\toverriding effect. It says that  save as otherwise provided in
\n\tSection 173, the provisions of this Act shall have effect
\n\tnotwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any
\n\tother law for the time being in force or in any instrument having
\n\teffect by virtue of any other law than this Act. Section 175 of the
\n\tAct makes it clear that the provisions of this Act are in addition
\n\tto and not in derogation of other laws for the time being in force.
\n\tIt is, therefore, contended that when there is no specific provision
\n\tof excluding  jurisdiction of Consumer Courts, it cannot be said
\n\tthat Consumer Courts have no power to entertain and decide
\n\tcomplaints alleging deficient services for supply of electric
\n\tenergy. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case
\n\tof Torrent Power A.E.C. Ltd. Vs. Gayatri Intermediates,
\n\treported in 2006 (2)
\n\tGLR 1580 which interprets
\n\tSection 154 of the Electricity Act in which there is no express
\n\tprovision of exclusion of jurisdiction. Hence, it cannot be said
\n\tthat  the Consumer Courts cannot entertain the complaints involving
\n\tdeficiency in service.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf
\n\tone reads definition of deficiency in service and definition of
\n\tservice in Consumer Protection
\n\tAct, it is very widely worded meaning thereby any person (consumer)
\n\tif files complaint before Consumer Court alleging deficiency in
\n\tservices on many counts including for example excessive bill,
\n\tarbitrary action of electricity office bearers, wrong reports made
\n\tat the place or premises of consumer regarding meter or installed
\n\tequipments, not acted as required under the law or procedure
\n\testablished under provisions of Electricity Act or other similar
\n\tgrievances, Consumer Courts have jurisdiction to entertain to decide
\n\tsuch complaints. It is difficult to segregate allegations of theft
\n\tof electrical energy, which is alleged by officers of Electricity
\n\tCompany, since it is based on inspection of any premises in which
\n\telectrical supply is given. There are  factual disputes between the
\n\tparties which need to be decided. The allegations of tempering with
\n\tmeter and theft of electricity are to be provided, and officers
\n\tcannot be permitted to act arbitrarily on presumption of theft and
\n\ttake resort to immediate disconnection and recovery of additional
\n\tamount on the ground of provisional assessment on the basis of
\n\talleged theft. In case of defect in meter there are provisions under
\n\tSection 126 to refer the dispute to the Electrical Inspector. So far
\n\tas assessment or provisional assessment on allegations of theft of
\n\telectrical energy are concerned in all cases it is alleged that
\n\ttheft is committed and simply by alleging theft and action thereon,
\n\tjurisdiction vested in Consumer Courts cannot be taken away by such
\n\tnecessary implication saying that it has no jurisdiction since there
\n\tappears to be theft.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis further contended that if any complaint is lodged alleging
\n\texcessive bill which is issued by electricity company, on many
\n\tgrounds namely, improper recording  of meter,
\n\tnon-use of electrical energy, earlier use of consumer on average
\n\tbasis, extra ordinary high recording of use of energy due to defects
\n\tin meter or other equipments, high handed action of office bearers
\n\tof Electricity Company, improper recording and notes of inspection
\n\treport, arbitrary decision of inspector or officer of Electricity
\n\tCompany not sending meter to Electrical Inspector and suddenly
\n\tdisconnecting the electric supply which is essential services to
\n\tevery customer, exploiting and harassing attitude of officers of
\n\tcompany, asking for illegal gratification, unjust bargain, procedure
\n\tnot followed which is required to be followed under the law, hearing
\n\tnot given etc. On all such averments, alleging deficient services
\n\tconsumer can approach competent Court of law which is Consumer
\n\tCourts which are headed by highest Judicial Officers and acting in
\n\tlegal manner.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe provisions of
\n\tElectricity Act, 2003 are not complete code in itself since it does
\n\tnot provide for any compensation in favour of consumer and even in
\n\ttheft cases, action in Special Courts is action in Criminal
\n\tProcedure Code for imposing punishment on consumer who is treated as
\n\taccused. So far as the word  unauthorized use of electricity
\n\tand  theft  are concerned, both situations are dealt with in
\n\tElectricity Act in different manner and action under Section 126 and
\n\taction under Section 135 are different. As held in the decision of
\n\tthis court in the case of Torrent
\n\tPower A.E.C. Ltd. Vs. Gayatri Intermediates, (Supra)  theft
\n\tis with motive and  unauthorized use of electrical energy  is
\n\twithout motive. In a given case when consumer’s premises is
\n\tinspected and without hearing his electricity supply is disconnected
\n\tand customer is asked to pay heavy amount of bill even on
\n\tprovisional assessment, he is obliged to pay said amount with or
\n\twithout protest for getting restoration of electric supply, which
\n\tcan never be intention of legislature and consumer cannot be
\n\tremediless. Exactly for such reasons even though strict measures are
\n\tprovided in Electricity Act, 2003, the legislature thought it fit to
\n\tretain powers of consumer Courts and not excluded by inserting any
\n\tspecific provisions like Section 145 of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe most important and
\n\tbasic difference in both Acts are that Consumer Courts are granted
\n\tpower to award compensation in Section 14(d) besides directions to
\n\tremove defects or deficiencies in the services in question. The
\n\targuments that under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003,
\n\tspecial Court is empowered to decide civil liability, is
\n\tmisconceived and improper since if the section is read closely it
\n\tshows that the special Court may determine the civil liability
\n\tagainst the consumer or person in terms of money for theft of energy
\n\twhich shall not be less than an amount equal to two times of tariff
\n\trate applicable for a period of 12 months preceding the date of
\n\tdetection of theft of energy or the exact period of theft if
\n\tdetermined whichever is less and the amount of civil liability so
\n\tdetermined shall be recovered as if it were a decree of Civil Court.
\n\tSimple reading of this section means that the civil liability i.e.
\n\tcompensation can be awarded against consumer and not in favour of
\n\tconsumer and hence there is no provision by which consumer can claim
\n\tcompensation under Electricity Act, hence, only under provisions of
\n\tConsumer Protection Act any consumer can file complaint alleging
\n\tdeficient services and also claiming compensation which is object of
\n\tConsumer Protection Act, particularly when power of Civil Court are
\n\ttaken away under Section 145 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn interpreting two
\n\tparallel provisions of law dealing with same situations time and
\n\tagain by various decisions of the Apex Court, it has been held that
\n\tif two views are possible, one view which is beneficial to citizen
\n\tshall be taken to safeguard interest of public at large. Needless to
\n\tsay that provisions of Consumer Protection Act is beneficial piece
\n\tof legislation with object to protect and safeguard interest of any
\n\tcitizen and hence should be liberally construed by Court of law. It
\n\tis, therefore, contended that all these petitions filed by the
\n\tElectricity Company deserve to be dismissed by observing that the
\n\tConsumer Courts have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the
\n\tcomplaints in which deficiency in service including high handed
\n\taction of allegations of theft of electrical energy are made by any
\n\tperson.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned advocates
\n\tappearing on behalf of the respondent   consumers, in support of
\n\ttheir submissions relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the
\n\tcase of State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharthi House Building Coop.
\n\tSociety and others, reported
\n\tin (2003) 2 SCC 412
\n\twherein it is held that the Consumer Protection Act was enacted
\n\tkeeping  in view the long-felt necessity protecting the common man
\n\tfrom wrongs wherefor the ordinary law for all intent and purport had
\n\tbecome illusory. In terms of the said Act,  a consumer is entitled
\n\tto participate in the proceedings directly as a result whereof his
\n\thelplessness against a powerful business house may be taken care of.
\n\tIt is further held that it is evident from Section 3 of the Act that
\n\tremedies provided thereunder are not in derogation of those provided
\n\tunder other laws. The Act
\n\tsupplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of the civil courts
\n\tor other statutory authorities. The Act provides for a further
\n\tsafeguard to the effect that in the event a complaint involves
\n\tcomplicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, the
\n\tcomplainant would be at liberty to approach the civil court for
\n\tappropriate relief. The provisions of the said Act are required to
\n\tbe interpreted as broadly as possible. The forums under the Act have
\n\tjurisdiction to entertain a complaint despite the fact that other
\n\tforums\/courts would also have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the
\n\tlis.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance
\n\tis also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
\n\tSecretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit
\n\tSociety Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through L. Rs. And others,
\n\treported in AIR 2004 SC 448,
\n\twherein it is held that Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to decide
\n\tthe dispute between members
\n\tand cooperative society as neither S.99 nor S.156 of the Tamil Nadu
\n\tCo-operative Societies Act, 1983 ousts the jurisdiction of consumer
\n\tForum. The remedies that are available to an aggrieved party under
\n\tthe Consumer Protection Act are wider. For instance in addition to
\n\tgranting a specific relief the forums under the Consumer Protection
\n\tAct have jurisdiction to award compensation for the mental agony,
\n\tsuffering, etc., which possibly could not be given under S.90 of
\n\tTamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Merely because the rights and
\n\tliabilities are created between the members and the management of
\n\tthe society under the Act and forums are provided, it cannot take
\n\taway or exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the forums under the
\n\tConsumer Protection Act expressly and intentionally to serve a
\n\tdefinite cause in terms of the objects and reasons of Consumer
\n\tProtection Act. Therefore, the view taken by the State Commission
\n\tthat the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act
\n\trelating to reference of disputes to arbitration
\n\tshall prevail over the provisions of the Consumer Act is incorrect
\n\tand untenable.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance
\n\tis also placed on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes
\n\tRedressal Commission in the case of Jharkhand State
\n\tElectricity Board and another Vs. Anwar Ali,
\n\treported in  2008 (2)  C.P.J. 284,
\n\twherein it is held that the provisions of the Consumer Protection
\n\tAct are specifically saved under Section 173 r\/w. Section 174 of the
\n\tElectricity Act. Therefore, the provisions are required to be
\n\treasonably construed to make them in harmony with each other as far
\n\tas possible, and, hence, the Court has kept in mind that to
\n\t‘harmonize’ means ‘not to destroy’ and\/or to hold that the
\n\tprovisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not applicable
\n\tfor redressal in case of grievances of a consumer against the
\n\tElectricity Board or such authority. It is further
\n\theld that the consumer forum would have jurisdiction to entertain
\n\tthe complaint against the final order passed by the assessing
\n\tofficer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The jurisdiction
\n\tof the Consumer Forum is not barred by any provisions of Electricity
\n\tAct, but the same is expressly saved under Section 173 r\/w. Sections
\n\t174 and 175 of the Electricity Act. Reliance is also placed on the
\n\tdecision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in
\n\tthe case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and
\n\tothers Vs. Megh Raj, reported
\n\tin 2008 (4) C.P.J. 11
\n\twherein the proposition of law made in earlier decision were
\n\treiterated.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving heard the learned
\n\tcounsels appearing for the parties and having considered their rival
\n\tsubmissions in light of statutory provisions contained in the
\n\tElectricity Act, 2003 as well as Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and
\n\tthe decided case law on the subject, the Court is of the view that
\n\tthe Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints
\n\tin respect of the matters pertaining to supply of electricity,
\n\tagainst the electricity companies.\n<\/p>\n
\tLooking to the provisions
\n\tcontained in Electricity Act, 2003 as well as Supply of Electricity
\n\tCode framed thereunder, it is clear that once the consumers are
\n\tindulged in theft of electricity and for that theft bills under
\n\tSection-135 of the Act have been issued the Consumer Forum has no
\n\tjurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by the consumers nor
\n\tsuch Forum can pass any interim order directing the electricity
\n\tCompany to grant electricity connection.  As per the provisions
\n\tcontained in Section-153 of the Electricity Act the Special Courts
\n\thave been constituted and as per the provisions of  Sections-153 and
\n\t154 of the Act the Consumer Court has no power to entertain any
\n\tcomplaint when there is theft of electricity. In exercise of the
\n\tpower conferred under Section-181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and
\n\tunder Section-12 of the Gujarat Electricity Industries
\n\t(Re-organization and Regulations) Act, 2003, Gujarat Electricity
\n\tRegulatory Commission has framed Gujarat Electricity Regulatory
\n\tCommission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters)
\n\tRegulations, 2005.  The Regulation 7.9 deals with the powers of the
\n\tSpecial Courts.  As per Regulation 7.9.1 every offence punishable
\n\tunder Sections  135 to 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 shall be
\n\ttriable only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such
\n\toffence has been committed. In view of these provisions, the
\n\tConsumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any matter relating
\n\tto theft of electricity.\n<\/p>\n
\tOnce the electricity
\n\tcompany issues bill under Section-126 of the Act for unauthorized
\n\tuse of electricity, the consumer must approach the Appellate
\n\tAuthority under Section-127 of the Act. It does not fall within the
\n\tjurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.  Regulation 7.3 deals with
\n\tprovisional assessment. Regulation 7.4 deals with objection against
\n\tprovisional assessment and 7.5 deals with Appeal against final
\n\tassessment order to Appellate Authority. As per Regulation 7.5.1 any
\n\tperson aggrieved by a final order made under sub clause 7.4.1
\n\t(Section-126 of the Electricity Act, 2003) may, within 30 days of
\n\tthe said order, prefers an appeal to the Appellate Authority.
\n\tConsidering this provision the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\tEven under the provisions
\n\tof Section-42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the Consumer can file
\n\tthe complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum
\n\tconstituted under the Act and against the decision of Forum an
\n\tAppeal can be filed before the Electricity Ombudsmen under Section
\n\t42(7) of th Act. Thus, there are three different Forums available
\n\tfor the consumers for ventilating their grievances and hence after
\n\tthe Act, 2003 and after availability of all the three different
\n\tForums, the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum constituted under the
\n\tConsumer Protection Act shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the
\n\tcomplaints filed by the consumers with regard to the electricity
\n\tdisputes.  All the judgments which are cited in support of the
\n\tconsumers are prior to the Act of 2003 and hence they cannot be
\n\tpressed into service while deciding the controversy involved in the
\n\tpresent group of petitions.  The Apex Court as well as different
\n\tHigh Courts including this Court have clearly held that depending
\n\tupon the nature of dispute the consumer may either approach the
\n\tConsumer Forum constituted under the Electricity Act or to the
\n\tAppellate Authority or to the Special Court and there is no
\n\tjustification in filing any complaint before the Consumer Forum or
\n\tin entertaining such complaint by the Consumer Forum.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs stated above, under
\n\tthe Electricity Act, 2003 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is
\n\texcluded.  Under Section-145 of the Act, the jurisdiction of Civil
\n\tCourt to entertain Suits in respect of matters falling under
\n\tSection-126 of the Act is expressly barred. Hence, the Consumer
\n\tForum, either expressly or by incorporation should direct the
\n\tconsumers to approach the competent authority under the Electricity
\n\tAct.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Jharkhand  State
\n\tElectricity Board & Anr. Vs. Anwar Ali (Supra),
\n\tthe Apex Court, while considering
\n\tthe scope and extent of the beneficial consumer legislation,
\n\tparticularly with regard to technical subjects falling under
\n\tprovisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, set aside the order
\n\timpugned therein and remitted the matter to National Commission to
\n\trecord positive finding on the question as to whether consumer of
\n\telectricity is covered by the definition of consumer as defined in
\n\tSection-2(o) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\t Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.
\n\tLtd., (Supra),
\n\tthe Apex Court has very categorically held that complaints of
\n\tindividual consumers are outside the scope of State Commission and
\n\tthat all individual consumers’ grievances should be raised before a
\n\tForum\/Ombudsman as provided under Section 42(5) and 42(6) of the
\n\tAct.\n<\/p>\n
\t The Delhi High Court has
\n\tgone a step further and issued general directions to all Consumer
\n\tForums and Commissions within its jurisdiction not to pass any
\n\tinterim orders in respect of complaints of consumer where issue of
\n\tdirect theft of electricity or dishonest abstraction of electrical
\n\tenergy is alleged.\n<\/p>\n
\t Awarding of compensation
\n\tby Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act is not a ground
\n\tto invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums. Claim for
\n\tcompensation pre-supposes deficiency of service, the determination
\n\tof which is being made by the competent forums, authorities and
\n\tCourts under the Electricity Act and hence the Consumer Forums
\n\tand\/or Commissions are not entitled to entertain such disputes.\n<\/p>\n
\t In
\n\t General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan &
\n\tAnr. (2009) III CPJ 71 (SC),
\n\tthe Apex
\n\tCourt was concerned with the dispute regarding non-payment of
\n\ttelephone bill for the telephone connection provided to the
\n\trespondent
\n\tand for the said non-payment of the bill the telephone connection
\n\twas disconnected. Aggrieved by the said disconnection, the
\n\trespondent filed complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal
\n\tForum. The Forum allowed the complaint and directed the telephone
\n\tCompany to reconnect the telephone connection and pay compensation
\n\tof Rs.5,000\/- with interest at 12% p.a.  The matter went up to the
\n\tApex Court and it is held by the Apex Court that when there is a
\n\tspecial remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act
\n\tregarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy
\n\tunder the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Even
\n\twith regard to awarding compensation, the Apex Court referred to its
\n\town earlier decision in the case of  Chairman,
\n\tThiruvalluvar Transport  Corporation Vs. Consumer
\n\tProtection Council (1995) 2 SCC, 479,
\n\twherein it was held that the National Commission has no jurisdiction
\n\tto
\n\tadjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out of motor
\n\tvehicles accidents. The Court agreed with this view taken in the
\n\tsaid judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tview of the above legal position, the Court is of the firm view that
\n\tthe Consumer Forum and\/or Commission should not make any venture to
\n\tentertain the complaints filed by the consumers against the
\n\tElectricity Companies. This Court is not so harsh as the Delhi High
\n\tCourt which has directed all Consumer Forums and Commissions falling
\n\twithin its jurisdiction not to entertain any complaint against the
\n\tElectricity Company.  However, at the same time it is expected that
\n\twhen the Statute, if not expressly, but by implication, bars the
\n\tjurisdiction of Consumer Forums as observed by the Apex Court in the
\n\tcase of  General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan
\n\t& Anr. (Supra),
\n\tthe same jurisdiction shall not be exercised by the Consumer
\n\tForum. Despite this fact, the Court has found in the present group
\n\tof petitions that the Consumer Forums have not only entertained the
\n\tcomplaints but, for non-compliance of its order have also
\n\tentertained execution proceedings and orders were passed for
\n\tattachment of the properties of the Electricity Companies. Even the
\n\tdisputes between the tenants and landlords with regard to
\n\telectricity connection have been entertained by the Consumer Forum.
\n\tThis is obviously beyond the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of
\n\tthe Consumer Forum and such matters should not have been entertained
\n\tby the Consumer Forum.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the above discussion, the Court allows all these petitions
\n\tand the impugned orders passed by the Consumer Forum and\/or the
\n\tCommission are hereby quashed and set aside. It is open for the
\n\tpetitioners   Electricity Companies to take appropriate action as
\n\ta result of quashing of the said orders. Pursuant to the interim
\n\torders passed by the Forums and\/or Commissions if any electric
\n\tconnection is granted to the consumer the same may also be affected
\n\tas all these interim as well as final orders stand quashed and set
\n\taside. Rule in each of these petitions is made absolute without any
\n\torder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t                       (K.\n<\/p>\n
\tA. PUJ, J.)   <\/p>\n
kks<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Deputy vs Jagrut on 13 May, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/8264\/2009 1\/ 51 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8264 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8265 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8974 of 2009 With […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40986","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDeputy vs Jagrut on 13 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Deputy vs Jagrut on 13 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-30T18:30:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Deputy vs Jagrut on 13 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-30T18:30:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":6961,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Deputy vs Jagrut on 13 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-30T18:30:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Deputy vs Jagrut on 13 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Deputy vs Jagrut on 13 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Deputy vs Jagrut on 13 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-30T18:30:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Deputy vs Jagrut on 13 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-30T18:30:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010"},"wordCount":6961,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010","name":"Deputy vs Jagrut on 13 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-30T18:30:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-vs-jagrut-on-13-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deputy vs Jagrut on 13 May, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40986","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40986"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40986\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40986"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40986"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40986"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}