JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. MD. EKRAM ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner. The sole respondent was earlier served notice and he had also entered appearance through his counsel earlier. On the last occasion the case was adjourned, although the petitioner was present but no one appeared on behalf of the sole respondent. Today again no one is present on behalf of the respondent, therefore the matter is being heard and decided. Petitioner is Jharkhand State Electricity Board, who has challenged the order dated 13.8.2007 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in P.L.A. Case No. 892 of 2007 by which order 3 more applications being P.L.A Case Nos. 1074/2007,1096/2007 and 1097/2007 preferred by the different persons have also been decided. The petitioner- Board is aggrieved as in the matter of application of the relevant category of service chargeable upon the respondent- consumer which is determined by the tariff schedule laid down by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission and applicable to the petitioner- Board, the matter has been referred to Permanent Lok Adalat in a prelitigative case which has been decided against them. According to the petitioner the sole respondent had preferred a prelitigative case before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi claiming that he is entitled to rural connection under the domestic service, D.S.-I(b), while according to the petitioner-Board the premises of the respondent falls under the urban area covered under the domestic service for urban / industrial area and category applicable is domestic service D.S.-II(b). In any case the petitioner submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat, although may have jurisdiction under Section 22B(i) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 to adjudicate the matter related to supply of electricity but it had failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 22C(4 to 7) before proceeding to decide the dispute on merit between the parties. Public Utility Service as defined under Section 22(A)(b)(iii) also includes supply of power to Public by any establishment. However, as per the law settled by this Court in the case of State Bank of India, Dhanbad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. passed in W. P. (C) No. 1449 of 2008 vide order dated 09.04.2009 by the Single Bench of this Court and in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Road, Ranchi Vs. Bodya Oraon and Anr. passed in W. P. (C) No. 1975 of 2007 dated 30.04. 2012 by the Division Bench of this Court, the Permanent Lok Adalat should have followed mandate of the Act of 1987 by making efforts for conciliation between the parties by framing the terms of settlement and offered it to the them to arrive at a agreed settlement or compromise over the dispute and only upon failure on the part of the parties to do so, it should have proceeded, thereafter, to adjudicate the matter on merit. It appears from the perusal of the impugned order that although the Permanent Lok Adalat has framed the question of maintainability of the application on the contest made by the opposite party- petitioner in the present writ application herein, but it did not follow the mandate of Section 22C(4) to(7) and thereby not framed the terms of settlement and offer it to the parties to enable them to arrive at a agreed settlement over the same. The dispute even otherwise is a technical matter for which a special constituted forum " Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum" is constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 having experts appointed in the said forum to decide such dispute where the respondent had ample reason to move, but he has instead chosen the Permanent Lok Adalat whose primary duty is to settle the dispute between the parties on the basis of conciliation or settlement as per the scheme of the Act. In these circumstance, as per the petitioner, the impugned order suffers from error of jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. As already stated herein above the supply of electricity is a public utility service as defined under Section 22(A)(b)(iii) of the Act of 1987. However, in a prelitigative application preferred before the Permanent Lok Adalat , the Permanent Lok Adalat should follow the mandate as laid down under Section 22C(4)to(7) of the Act of 1987 by framing the terms of settlement between the parties and only upon failure to arrive at a compromise or agreed settlement should proceed and decide the case on merit. In the present case the Permanent Lok Adalat has failed to do so and straightway decided the case on merit.