PUSHKAR STEEL (P) LTD Vs. OMBUDSMAN (ELECTRICITY)
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Pushkar Steel (P) Ltd
Click here to view full judgement.
BARIN GHOSH, J. -
(1.) AS it appears to us, the order under appeal was passed on 13th December, 2011 and, accordingly, appeal ought to have had been filed on
or before 12th January, 2012. With effect from 12th January, 2012, the
Court was closed for long vacation. The Court re -opened after long
vacation on 21st February, 2012. The present appeal was filed on 21st
February, 2012. There is, therefore, no delay in filing the appeal.
However, an application has been filed for condonation of delay in
preferring the appeal, where it has been stated that the copy of the
order appealed against was received only on 28th January, 2012.
(2.) HAVING regard to the situation, as depicted above, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 did not seriously object
to the application for condonation of delay. We are of the view that
there was no delay in filing the appeal.
(3.) WE have considered the matter on merit. Respondent No.2 had put forward a claim against the appellant. This claim was disputed by the
appellant before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum created under
the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulation, 2004. The
Forum rejected the contention of the appellant by an order dated 21st
April, 2008. The appellant, being aggrieved thereby, preferred an appeal
with an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.
The appeal, in terms of the said Regulation, could be filed within 30
days from the date of the order of the Forum. Inasmuch as, the appeal was
preferred almost after two years from the date of the order of the Forum,
appellant filed the aforementioned application for condonation of delay,
where it was stated that the reason for delay was misplacement of the
file by the concerned clerical staff of the appellant. This explanation
was not accepted by the appellate authority, namely, the Ombudsman and,
accordingly, he dismissed the application for condonation of delay in
preferring the appeal. Appellant, accordingly, approached this Court by
filing a writ petition, which has been dismissed also on the ground that
the reason, as disclosed for delay, was such that if the same was not
accepted by the appellate authority, the writ Court can not interfere
with the same. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred.
It is true that there was a delay of about two years in approaching the Ombudsman in the appeal against the order of the Forum
and it is also true that the reasons furnished for delay in preferring
the appeal before the Ombudsman were too weak, but having regard to the
fact that the controversy in the appeal, which was sought to be
highlighted, was not addressed to, we think that the learned Judge,
instead of dismissing the writ petition, should have allowed the same by
compensating the respondents adequately.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.