JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) THESE petitions for review are directed against the order dated 21.2.2008 passed by a Division Bench by which the two LPA No. 496 of 1999R and LPA No. 102 of 2000 which were directed
against the judgment and order dated 12.10.1999 and 14.2.2000 passed by the learned Single
Judge in CWJC No. 2381 of 1998R & CWJC 2408 of 1999R were dismissed. However, the review
petitions are time barred by 160 days for which although explanation has been offered, we do not
consider those explanations as sufficient cause for condoning the delay. But in spite of the delay,
we considered it appropriate to consider the review petitions on merit merely to obviate miscarriage
of justice, if there be any and hence we permitted the counsel to address us on the merit of the
review petitions.
(2.) THE applications for condonation of delay in filing the review petitions thus be treated as allowed. Civil Review Nos. 26 and 27 of 2008:
In so far as the merit of the review petitions are concerned, learned counsel submitted that although the petitioner is not aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Single Judge by which
the petitioner was directed to supply electricity to the respondent who is a handicapped person as
he has lost both his eyes and a limb which has been amputated, the purpose of the review petition
(s) is only to ensure that the petitioner company may not be directed to supply electricity to any
other consumers on the basis of the order passed by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as, the
cause raised for supply of electricity is in the nature of relief which could be entertained and
adjudicated by the consumer forum. Since a specific remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is
available, the respondents should not have been granted relief by the learned Single Judge which
has been upheld by the Division Bench.
(3.) THE petitioner had moved the learned Single Judge seeking supply of electricity on the ground that he is a consumer and therefore he should be granted the benefit of supply by the petitioner
company which was allowed.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.