Raghav Woollen Mills High Class Super Soft Mink Blankets Manufactures vs State Of Haryana And Others

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.09.2020 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No.6.

As per the facts mentioned in the petition, petitioner had approached the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, UHBVN, Kurukshetra, raising the

grievance with regard to the demand of Rs. 13,30,000/- from him.

The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, UHBVN, Kurukshetra, while allowing the claim of the petitioner, passed an order dated 18.11.2019

(Annexure P-12), wherein, it has been held that charging of the levy of Rs. 13,30,000/- was not in accordance with the circulars, which have been

issued by the respondent-UHBVN. As the order passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, UHBVN, Kurukshetra dated 18.11.2019 (P-

12) was not being implemented and the petitioner was not being refunded the amount of Rs. 13,30,000/-, he approached respondent No.6 for the

implementation of the order dated 18.11.2019 (P-12). Thereafter, respondent No.6 has passed an order dated 29.09.2020 (P-13), while disposing of

the said request of the petitioner. The relevant part of the said order is as under: -

“20. A reading of the said order in light of the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the Commission would reveal that the prima facie view of this

office is substantiated by the consideration made in the preceding paragraphs. It is worth consideration that the Sale Circular No.U-03/2019 issued by

the office of Superintending Engineer/Commercial UHBVN Panchkula stopped short of making an absolute provision for the Service Connection &

Load Extension Charges. A clear stipulation was made in the said circular that the directions issued therein and the demand notices to be issued there

under were to contain a note to the effect that the charges being levied would be subject to the outcome of the review petition pending before the

Commission. As such, the absolute case made by the petitioner for exemption from applicability of the Circular was not liable to be accepted. In any

case, even if the Sale Circular No.U-03/2019 is not considered, it is clear that the relief granted to the appellant has the effect of undoing the

clarification given by the Commission vide its judgment dated 27.11.2019. The more advisable course for the Forum was to not given any final decision

on the questions of law and fact which were pending consideration of the Commission as on the date of decision i.e. 18.11.2019. Presently, if the said

order passed by the Forum is implemented by the DISCOM(s) then it will have the effect of perpetuating the anomaly which the Commission has

sought to prevent on the petition made on behalf of the DISCOM(s). In view of the above observations, the present case is remanded back to the

Forum for deciding the representation afresh. No appeal lies before the Office of the Ombudsman since the relief has already been granted to the

appellant by the forum and no question or challenge has been made against CGRF order. The Forum is directed to consider the case of the Appellant

in light of orders passed by the Commission, especially the order dated 27.11.2019. The forum shall also consider the issue of its jurisdiction, as

prescribed under the relevant provisions, as to whether the question as to applicability of the Sale Circulars issued by the DISCOMs on the basis of

the Commission's Regulations can be adjudicated by the Forum.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though, respondent No.6 has opined that no appeal lies before the Ombudsman and also that the relief

has already been granted by the Forum, hence, no order can be passed, but while passing the speaking order (P-13), certain observations have been

made by respondent No.6, which are contrary to the law and against the interest of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

once, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of maintainability, no observations could have been made by respondent No.6 while

passing the order dated 29.09.2020 (P-13).

Notice of motion.

Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, who has joined the proceedings through video conference, accepts notice on behalf of

the respondents.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that as per the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Forum & Ombudsman)

Regulations, 2020, the jurisdiction for implementation of any order passed by the Forum lies with the Haryana

Electricity Regulatory Commission keeping in view the provision of Section 2.41 of the said Regulations read with Section 142 of the Haryana

Electricity Act, 2003. Provision 2.41 of the said Regulations is as under: -

“2.41 The decisions of the Forum will be recorded duly supported by reasons. The Order of the Forum will be communicated to the complainant,

Licensee and the concerned Dispute Settlement Committee, if applicable, in writing within 7 days of the passing of the Order. The Licensee shall

comply with the order of the Forum within 21 days from the date of receipt of the order. In appropriate cases, considering the nature of the case, the

Forum, upon the request of the Licensee, may extend the period for compliance of its order up to a maximum of three months.

In case of non-compliance of the Order of the Forum or that of a Dispute Settlement Committee, the aggrieved consumer may approach the

Commission who will provide the consumer as well as the Licensee an opportunity of being heard. The Commission may initiate proceedings under

section 142 of the Act for violation of the Regulations framed by the Commission.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no objection in approaching the appropriate authorities for the implementation of the

order passed by the Forum dated 18.11.2019 (P-12), but the observations, which have been made by respondent No.6 in the impugned order dated

29.09.2020 (P-13), will come in his way.

Keeping in view the above, petitioner is directed to avail the appropriate remedy for the redressal of his grievance by approaching the competent

authority, as envisaged under law, detailed hereinbefore.

It is also made clear that in case the petitioner approaches the competent authority for the redressal of his grievance, appropriate order considering his

grievance will be passed by the authorities on merits of the case without being influenced in any manner by any observations, which have been made

by respondent No.6 in the impugned order dated 29.09.2020 (P-13).

Present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.