Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs Deepak Kumar

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member

This revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 14.01.2020 in Appeal No. 747 of 2019 of the State Commission Punjab arising out of Order dated 12.09.2019 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 159 of 2018.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 12.09.2019 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 14.01.2020 of the State Commission and the memo. of petition.

It appears that the appeal was filed in the State Commission with delay of 20 days.  The State Commission had passed a conditional Order condoning the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- to facilitate appreciation. The Order passed by the State Commission dated 22.11.2019 may be quoted hereinbelow:-

“M.A. No. 2414 of 2019 (Delay)

Heard.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to costs of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission before the date fixed.

Main Case

Admitted subject to deposit of cost, which is condition precedent to condone the delay.

Notice be issued to the respondent for 14.01.2020.

Record (Scanned/Photocopy) of the District Forum be called, as per the latest guidelines issued by the Hon’ble National Commission, vide letter No. M-20/NCDRC/2018 dated 30.08.2018.”

It further transpires that the petitioners never bothered to comply with the Order passed by the State Commission and the cost imposed remained unpaid  even though more than sufficient time was there at its disposal to comply with the Order.  When the matter was taken up next the State Commission, after finding non-compliance of the Order, dismissed the delay condonation application for obvious reason of non-fulfilment of the conditions. The impugned Order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the State Commission may be usefully quoted hereinbelow:

“Vide order dated 22.11.2019 passed in this Miscellaneous Application, the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal was condoned, subject to cost of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission before the date fixed..

As per report of the Registry, cost of Rs.2,000/- has not been deposited by the applicants/appellants. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants prays for deposit of the cost today itself. The said prayer of the applicants/appellants cannot be accepted and the time cannot be extended as it will amount to review of our own order and we have no power to recall our own order. The position has been made clear by catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was held in "Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar &Anr." IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC) that neither the State Commission nor District Forum has, under the provisions of the Act, the power to review/recall/modify an order passed by it. That proposition of law was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Lucknow Development Authority v. Shyam Kapoor" 2013(1) CPR 597 (SC).

The payment of cost was condition precedent to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Since the payment has not been deposited and compliance of the order has not been made, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appellant stands dismissed.

Since the application for condoantion of delay is dismissed, hence the appeal filed by the appellants is also dismissed being barred by limitation.”

The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Order of the State Commission was not complied with because of inadvertence and oversight. The perusal of the grounds of appeal also do not disclose any justification as to why the Order of the State Commission was not complied with.

The ambit and scope of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission has its own limitations.  There must be some error of jurisdiction in the impugned Order which may be agitated and addressed.  The perusal of the impugned Order shows that there is no element of perversity in the same which may vitiate the Order.  The Bench does not see any material irregularity on the basis of which the impugned Order may be castigated. Certainly, there is no error of jurisdiction that may be pointed out in the impugned Order.  Indifference of the petitioner or its lackadaisical attitude and apathy towards the legal proceedings and the sanctity of the Orders passed by judicial or quasi-judicial fora is difficult to be countenanced with. The petitioner being a government entity is expected to be more respectful and diligent in complying with the Orders passed in legal proceedings as it is having full wherewithal available at its end.  The Bench does not see any good ground to interfere with the impugned Order. Petition lacks merits and stands dismissed.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to their learned counsel. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.    .