RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs PARAG ICE FACTORY

THE District Forum, Ajmer by its order dated 2-3-1990 passed in Complaint Case No. 209/89 directed the opposite parties-appellants to pay interest on the security amount at the rate which is payable by the Nationalized Banks on three years fixed deposit within a period of two months, otherwise opposite parties will be guilty of disobedience of the order of the District Forum. THE Rajasthan State Electricity Board filed the appeal against that order before the State Commission which was registered as Appeal No. 99/90. THE State Commission dismissed the appeal on 19-6-1990. THE RSEB filed Revision No. 114/90 against the order dated 19-6-1990 passed by the State Commission. THE revision was dismissed on 6-2-1991. THE RSEB filed SLP No. 10511/91 on 14-3- 1991. It also submitted an application that an interim order may be passed for staying the operation of the order dated 2-3-1990 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer. THE Supreme Court of India by its order dated 9-8-1991 refused to stay the operation of the order. It, however, stayed the proceedings for disobedience. An application was submitted by the complainant-respondent on 19-8-1991 before the District Forum. THE District Forum passed the following order on that application on 1-10-1991 (1) that RESB should pay Rs. 36,182.51 on account of interest on the security amount within one month failing which this amount will be recovered from the opposite parties-appellants like a decree of a Civil Court and the opposite parties will be responsible for it. (2) that so far as proceedings for disobedience under Sec. 27 of the Act are concerned, they will remain stayed.

AN application was submitted on behalf of the RSEB on 30-10-1991 for reviewing the order dated 1-10-1991 passed by the District Forum. The District Forum recalled its order dated 1-10-1991 by its order dated 15-11-1991 but dismissed the application for review. It posted the case for reply of tile application dated 19-8-1991 of the complainant-respondent. The opposite parties-appellants submitted the reply. After hearing the arguments the District Forum passed the order dated 29-6-1992 that the RSEB should pay interest on the security amount of Rs. 62,934/- at the rate which is payable on fixed deposits by the Nationalised Bank within one month from the date of order and that the complainant-respondent will be entitled to interest. It took judicial notice about the rate of interest which is payable by the Nationalised Banks on the fixed deposits which is 10% p.a. The amount of interest which was to be paid to the complainant-respondent for the period 3 years 10% p.a. came to Rs. 20,831.15. The case as disclosed by the complainant was that despite specific order, the RSEB did not pay the amount & therefore the complainant-respondent was forced to file a fresh complaint/application as it constituted deficiency in service and the complainant -respondent is entitled to compensation. The District Forum by its order dated 29-6-1992 directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation & Rs. 500/- as costs within one month from the date of the order failing which the opposite parties would be guilty of disobedience. Against that the opposite parties have filed the appeal as stated above. We heard Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants & Mr. Sandeep Jain, Chief Executive for the respondent and carefully considered the order under appeal. It was submitted that the opposite parties did not pay the amount of interest on the security amount for the reason that the matter was subjudice before the Supreme Court of India & the Supreme Court in RSEB v. M/s. Alfa Alay Pvt. Ltd. passed the stay order in favour of RSEB. The SLP submitted in the case by the complainant was also fixed on the same day as is apparent from the order of the Supreme Court of India. It was submitted that there were adequate reasons for not paying the amount & therefore it is not a matter regarding deficiency in service. It was also submitted that the District Forum lost sight of the fact that final order in Complaint Case No. 209/89 was passed on 2-3-1990 by the District Forum. However, an order in variance could not be passed in Complaint Case No. 209/89 on 29-6-1992. The order passed on 2-3-1990 could be executed by making an application under Sec. 25 of the Act or by initiating proceedings under Sec. 27 of the Act. It was also pressed that the calculation of interest made by the District Forum is erroneous,

Mr. Jain, Chief Executive appearing for the respondent supported tne order under appeal. We have given our most anxious & thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants.

THE District Forum passed the order on 2r3-1990. THE appeal against that order was dismissed & revision against that order was also dismissed. THE State Commission by its order dated 19-6-1990 passed in Appeal No. 99/90 dismissed the appeal. However, at the request of the learned Counsel for the appellants it was clarified that the order passed in appeal will not prejudicially affect the rights of the appellants, if any order ?t variance with the order passed in appeal is passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 83/87 pending before the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur or by the Supreme Court of India. THE order of the District Forum dated 2-3-1990 was affirmed with the observations made in the appeal. THE revision was also dismissed. THE Supreme Court declined to stay the operation of the order. It however, stayed the contempt proceedings. The Supreme Court in Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board & Another various Special Leave Petitions and other Civil Appeal held vide its judgment dated 15-4-1993 that there is no liability on the Electricity Board either under the statute or common law or equity to pay interest & that no reason need to be given for enhancement of additional security deposit. So according to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 15-4-1993 the RSEB is not liable either under the statute or common law or equity to pay interest on the security deposit. As per the order dated 19-6-1990 passed in Appeal No. 99/ 90 affirming the order of the District Forum, Ajmer dated 2-3-1990 it cannot prejudicially affect the rights of the appellants as the order passed by the Supreme Court is in variance with the order passed by the District Forum & the appeal against which the revision was dismissed. The District Forum in variance with the order dated 2-3-1990 has passed the order on the application submitted by the complainant & awarded Rs. 1,000/- as compensation & Rs. 500/- as costs to be paid by the opposite parties-appellants to the complainant within one month from the date of the order. Even if the order dated 2-3-1990 had become final ignoring the order passed subsequently by the Supreme Court still the order under appeal could not be passed till the order dated 2-3-1990 holds good, for, the appeal against that order was dismissed & revision against that order was also dismissed. The District Forum exceeded its Jurisdiction when it passed the order dated 29-6-1992. For the aforesaid reasons the order dated 29-6-1992 passed in Complaint Case No. 209/89 is set aside.

THE District Forum has stated in the Order Text in Hindi committed. THE National Commission has observed in RLT 93 Part III 133 as under : "7. Before we take up this revision petition on merits we may mention here that order passed by the District Forum is bad in the eye of law as it passed a composite order i.e. ordering the payment of the amount and simultaneously directing that in default an order under Section 27 of the Act, i.e. order about imprisonment of the Opposite Parties. Such a composite order should not be passed. If an order passed under Section 14 of the Act is not complied with by the Opposite Party, a notice should issue to the defaulting party and he should be heard before passing an order under Section 27 of the Act. THE party concerned is entitled to give reasonable explanation about the default."

THE result is that the appeal succeeds and the order dated 29-6-1992 passed in Complaint Case No. 209/89 is set aside. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs of the appeal. Appeal allowed.