w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Enzen Global Solution Pvt Ltd. v/s President, Dist Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- B N GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15400PB2014PTC038543

Company & Directors' Information:- K V GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100DL2014PTC263567

Company & Directors' Information:- GLOBAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74999DL1992PLC048880

Company & Directors' Information:- T & I GLOBAL LTD. [Active] CIN = L29130WB1991PLC050797

Company & Directors' Information:- K G GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2000PTC104788

Company & Directors' Information:- A. V. GLOBAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090DL2007PTC159315

Company & Directors' Information:- A N GLOBAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92110MH1985PLC035269

Company & Directors' Information:- D S GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071516

Company & Directors' Information:- A B C GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB2011PTC035103

Company & Directors' Information:- I A T GLOBAL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24116DL1997PTC084916

Company & Directors' Information:- J D GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1997PTC091270

Company & Directors' Information:- B N G GLOBAL INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52590DL2011PLC225377

Company & Directors' Information:- N K COMPANY (GLOBAL) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52390WB2010PTC153624

Company & Directors' Information:- K B K GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24296DL2016PTC290487

Company & Directors' Information:- M & D GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31101UP1974PTC003937

Company & Directors' Information:- V R GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200WB2007PTC120797

Company & Directors' Information:- M M GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29120WB1986PTC041280

Company & Directors' Information:- R V GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74990MH2009PTC195301

Company & Directors' Information:- M M C GLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U11200MH2010PTC206910

Company & Directors' Information:- S R GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1997PTC084553

Company & Directors' Information:- H V GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2000PTC103960

Company & Directors' Information:- R P GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74990MH2009PTC193409

Company & Directors' Information:- M S GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MH2008PTC213273

Company & Directors' Information:- R S V GLOBAL LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1994PLC059032

Company & Directors' Information:- S S M E SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC174982

Company & Directors' Information:- FORUM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22210MH1950PTC008153

Company & Directors' Information:- N B GLOBAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15122UP2012PTC051614

Company & Directors' Information:- R K FORUM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U13209OR2008PTC009973

Company & Directors' Information:- A P SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2005PTC144131

Company & Directors' Information:- A M GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC261061

Company & Directors' Information:- M SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74120MH2013PTC247501

Company & Directors' Information:- L S A GLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74900TG2015PTC098308

Company & Directors' Information:- S. D. SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200WB2011PTC170349

Company & Directors' Information:- R L GLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52300HP2014PTC000764

Company & Directors' Information:- M R SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2016PTC306084

Company & Directors' Information:- R K T SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2012PTC229937

Company & Directors' Information:- G R GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102KA2013PTC069586

Company & Directors' Information:- H. E. GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72901GJ2016PTC092866

    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7693 of 2017

    Decided On, 10 August 2018

    At, High Court of Orissa

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

    For the Appearing Parties: Suresh Chandra Dash, Panchanan Panigrahi, H.K. Dash, Advocates.



Judgment Text


1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhenkanal in C.C. Case No. 91 of 2015 under the provision of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which has been allowed by the Forum vide order passed therein on 16.12.2016. The aforesaid order has been challenged merely on the ground of jurisdiction as has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vrs. Anis Ahmed, (2013) AIR SC 2766.

2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the order passed by the District Consumer Forum has been challenged directly before this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even though there is provision of appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as such the writ petition may not be entertained. However, he has not disputed the ratio decided in the case of U.P. Power Corporation .

3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record, from which this Court has found that the petitioner, who is the franchisee of the licensee unauthorisedly exercising the power of the licensee has initiated proceeding under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on detection of unauthorized use of electricity and theft. The proceeding under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been culminated in the final assessment order.

4. It is evident from the provision of Electricity Act, 2003 (in short 'Act 2003') that there is provision of appeal under the provision of Section 127 of the Act, 2003, but the opposite party no.2 instead of invoking the appellate jurisdiction conferred under Section 127 of the Act, 2003 has invoked the jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which has been registered as C.C. Case No. 91 of 2015 and the point related to maintainability of the dispute before the Forum has also been raised therein but the Forum has not taken into consideration that when the final assessment has been done in pursuance of the provision of Section 126 of the Act, 2003 against which provision of appeal is there entertaining the dispute raised by the opposite party under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is not sustainable.

5. It is not in dispute that the Electricity Act, 2003 is the selfcontent Act having its own provision. One of the provisions is for making provisional assessment vis--vis final assessment in case of unauthorized use of electricity to be done under the provision of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The order passed under Section 126 stipulates the provision for providing an opportunity of hearing against the order of provisional assessment and after hearing the consumer, final assessment order is to be made under the provision of Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

6. In the instant case, final assessment order has been passed under the provision of Section 126(5) of the Act, 2003. It is further evident that the order passed in pursuance to the provision of Section 126(5) of the Act, 2003, wherein provision of statutory appeal is there under the provision of Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, meaning thereby, if any proceeding initiated under Section 126 of the Act, 2003, appeal will lie before the competent authority in terms of the provision of Section 127 of the Act, 2003.

7. The opposite party no.2 instead of availing the statutory remedy as provided under Section 127 of the Act, 2003 has invoked the jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as conferred under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8. The dispute has been raised by the petitioner herein before the Forum regarding the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that against the order passed in terms of the Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, appeal will lie and the Forum is having no jurisdiction but the Forum without appreciating that aspect of the matter has proceeded and passed the final order which is under challenge in this writ petition.

9. The issue with respect to the jurisdiction of the Forum or Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation and this issue has been decided holding therein that the Electricity Act, 2003 is a self-content Act, while the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is meant for altogether for different issue i.e. related to deficiency in service, if found, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is to adjudicate the aforesaid issue. But the provision of 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 related to unauthorized use of electricity, wherein power has been conferred under the provision of Section 126(1) of the Act, 2003 to make out search and seizure of the premises, where the electricity connection has been provided and thereby to assess provisionally the quantum of the electricity consumed in money terms. The provision of Section 126 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for giving notice to the consumer to make an objection against the provisional assessment as has been done under Section 126(1) of the Act, 2003. Section 126(3) of the Act, 2003 stipulates to provide opportunity of hearing to the consumer before taking final decision regarding provisional assessment to assess it finally which is to be done under the provision of Section 126(5) of the Act, 2003.

10. Thus, it is evident that the provision of Section 126 of the Act, 2003 is against unauthorized use of electricity and when it is against the unauthorized use of electricity, it cannot be said to be deficiency in service as has been stipulated in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation while dealing with the issue has laid down the ratio holding therein that the Consumer Protection Act is having no jurisdiction, so far as the issue related to Section 126 of the Act, 2003.

12. In view of the aforesaid ratio laid down in the case of U.P. Power Corporation , which is squarely applicable on the facts and circumstances involved in this case, according to my considered view, the jurisdiction exercised by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhenkanal is having no jurisdiction.

13. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has raised the question regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that provision of be filed before the State Commission under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. But according to my considered view, when the question of jurisdiction has been raised and admittedly the District Consumer Forum is having no jurisdiction on the basis of ratio laid down in the case of U.P. Power Corporation .

14. This Court, applying the ratio laid down in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vrs. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai & ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1, is of the view that wherein the ratio has been laid down that if an order is without jurisdiction or contrary to the statutory rule or if there is infringement of any fundamental right, availability of alternative remedy will not be a bar to ente

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rtain writ petition in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the issue raised regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that availability of alternative remedy is having no substance. In the entirety of facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 16.12.2016 passed in the C.C. Case No. 91 of 2015 is held to be without jurisdiction. 16. Accordingly, the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhenkanal in C.C. Case No. 91 of 2015 is quashed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. 17. However, it is up to the opposite party no.2 to avail the statutory remedy as provided under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
O R