*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY +W.P.No.9700 of 2010 % 8-2-2011 # ITC Limited, an existing Company within the meaning of the Companies Act 1956, having its registered office at 37, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Kolkata-700071 and having its Divisional Headquarter at Agri Business Division, 31, S.D. Road, Secunderabad, represented by its Vice President (Finance) Mr.C.V. Sarma .. Petitioner Vs. $ Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APCPDCL, Hyderabad, 11-5-423/1, Besides Krishna Children’s Hospital, Red hills, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for petitioner : Sri C.R. Sridharan ^ Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri O.Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri Gandra Mohan Rao ? CASES REFERRED : 1. AIR 1967 SC 1269 2. AIR 1967 SC 1606 3. AIR 1970 SC 150 4. AIR 1978 SC 597 5. AIR 1981 SC 136 6. AIR 1981 SC 818 7. AIR 1986 SC 180 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.9700 of 2010 Date : 8-2-2011 Between : ITC Limited, an existing Company within the meaning of the Companies Act 1956, having its registered office at 37, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Kolkata-700071 and having its Divisional Headquarter at Agri Business Division, 31, S.D. Road, Secunderabad, represented by its Vice President (Finance) Mr.C.V. Sarma .. Petitioner And Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APCPDCL, Hyderabad, 11-5-423/1, Besides Krishna Children’s Hospital, Red hills, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri C.R. Sridharan Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri O.Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri Gandra Mohan Rao The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: The petitioner, which is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, filed this Writ Petition for a mandamus the set-aside proceedings C.G.No.73/2009-10/Hyderabad dated 8-4-2010 of respondent No.1. The facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are as under: The petitioner is involved in business in various lines such as manufacture of fast moving consumer goods, tobacco products, establishment and running of hotels, manufacture of paper boards and packaging goods etc. It has acquired properties in S.Nos.378, 379, 380, 381, 385, 386 and 387, Bommarasipet village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner made an application for release of power supply to respondent No.2 in respect of the premises situated in the above mentioned survey numbers. The petitioner pleaded that respondent No.2 extended power supply to its premises through service line passing through S.No.386, also owned by it. It is the further case of the petitioner that it has been carrying on Agri research activities with the aid of the electricity being supplied by respondent No.2. The petitioner has received letter dated 3-2-2010 from the Additional Assistant Engineer of respondent No.2 wherein it was called upon to produce documents such as particulars of the land etc., and prove that supply was released to it through its land only and that the lines are not passing in S.No.392 which is owned by Mr.Susheel Kumar Kanodia, Chairman of M/s.Pradeep Manoj Farms Private Limited, Hyderabad. The petitioner claimed to have sent its reply dated 10-2-2010. Thereafter the petitioner has received the impugned order passed by respondent No.1. Referring to the said order, the Additional Assistant Engineer, in his letter dated 19-4-2010 addressed to the petitioner informed the latter that supply will be disconnected within 7 days without any further notice in view of the directions given by respondent No.1 for removal of the overhead line erected through S.No.392 and disconnect the service connection given to the Shed in S.No.384. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1 and the action of respondent No.2 in seeking to implement the said order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit wherein it is inter alia asserted that he is the owner of S.No.392 and that without his knowledge and consent, respondent No.2 has laid the overhead line to the petitioner’s premises. It is further stated that as the petitioner failed to respond to the notice issued by respondent No.1 to give the details of the land, respondent No.3 has approached respondent No.1 for redressal of his grievance and that accordingly after inviting comments from respondent No.2 and considering the same, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order to shift the overhead electrical lines from S.No.392 to any other unobjectional place. Respondent No.3 has therefore averred that the order passed by respondent No.1 does not suffer from any illegalities. At the hearing Sri C.R. Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced the following contentions: (i) The order passed by respondent No.1 is wholly without jurisdiction because respondent No.3 is not a consumer of respondent No.2 in the context of and with reference to the dispute raised by him before respondent No.1. (ii) The order of respondent No.1 is vitiated by non- observance of principles of natural justice as the petitioner, whose interests are seriously jeopardized, was not even put on notice by respondent No.1 before directing disconnection and shifting of the overhead line; and (iii) The dispute raised by respondent No.3 is purely civil in nature as the identity of the land is involved and respondent No.1 has neither power nor authority to adjudicate such disputed question of fact which can be resolved only by the civil court of competent jurisdiction. Opposing the above contentions, Sri Gandra Mohan Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that respondent No.2 has laid overhead line over land in S.No.392 which admittedly does not belong to the petitioner; that as per revenue record the electricity overhead line falls in S.Nos.384 and 392 which do not belong to the petitioner and that therefore its legitimate grievance was rightly redressed by respondent No.1 which is constituted for redressal of such grievances. The learned counsel further submitted that the definition of ‘consumer’ in Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, “the Act”) is wide enough to encompass any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person as the case may be; that as respondent No.1 is constituted only for resolving such disputes as raised by respondent No.3, it has redressed the grievance of respondent No.3 after being satisfied that the overhead line was laid through S.No.392 and that therefore the impugned order does not call for any interference. From the respective pleadings raised and the contentions advanced, the Issues that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether respondent No.1 has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order; (ii) Even if respondent No.1 has such jurisdiction, whether the impugned order passed by it does not suffer from violation of principles of natural justice ? For resolving the above Issues, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Regulation under which respondent No.1 is constituted. The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, constituted under the provisions of the Act, is empowered to establish Forum for redressal of the grievances of the consumers, by the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. A two-tier redressal mechanism has been provided by the said provision, whereby the Regulatory Commission is empowered to establish a Forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers and also appoint a Vidyut Ombudsman. If the consumer is not satisfied with the redressal of his grievance by the Forum, he can make a representation to the Vidyut Ombudsman who will attempt conciliation between the consumer and the distribution licensee concerned. If conciliation is not reached between the consumer and the distribution licensee, the Vidyut Ombudsman will adjudicate on the issue. The Regulatory Commission has accordingly established respondent No.1- Forum by framing Regulation No.1 of 2004 (for short “the Regulation”). Regulation 2(c) of the Regulation defined ‘complainant’ as including a consumer as defined under sub-section (15) of Section 2 of the Act; an applicant for new connection; any registered consumer society; and any other unregistered association of consumers, where the consumers have similar interest. Regulation 2(d) defined ‘complaint’ as the letter or application filed with the Forum seeking redressal of grievances concerning the supply of electricity or the services rendered by the licensee. Clause 11(a) of Regulation No.5 provides that the Forum shall decide the complaint expeditiously and shall communicate its decision to the complainant within a period not exceeding 45 days of receipt of the complaint. The Forum shall give the reasons in support of its decisions. The definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(15) of the Act is incorporated by reverence under clause (c) of Regulation No.2. It is therefore useful to reproduce the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act hereunder : “consumer means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be.” From the scheme of the Regulation referred to above, it is evident that the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 is confined to the grievances brought before it by a complainant in a complaint filed by him. As noted above, the complainant must be either a consumer or an applicant for new connection or any registered consumer society or any unregistered association of consumers where the consumers have similar interest. In the impugned order, respondent No.1 reasoned and the same is reiterated by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 at the hearing that as the service connection to the petitioner was given in the premises which belongs to respondent No.3, the latter falls within the definition of consumer. On a close examination of this aspect, I do not find any merit in this reasoning. Under Section 2(15) of the Act, a person whose premises is supplied with electricity is also included in the definition of consumer. The inclusive definition of Section 2(15) of the Act thus takes within its sweep even persons whose premises are for the time being connected with the works of a licensee. The words “…for the purpose of receiving electricity….” in Section 2(15) of the Act are of significance in this context. The mere fact that the electrical works exist over the property of a person does not make him a ‘consumer’ unless such works of a licensee existing in his premises are intended for receiving electricity by him and not by another person with whom he had no jural relationship. In the instant case, it is not the pleaded case of respondent No.3 that either the overhead line or the meters allegedly installed in his premises are intended for receiving supply by him. Admittedly, they were installed for supplying power to the petitioner. Therefore, I have absolutely no hesitation in my mind to hold that it is only the petitioner who falls within the definition of ‘consumer’ with respect to the overhead line and other works which are in existence in S.No.392. Irrespective of whether the said survey number belongs to respondent No.3 or not, they were installed for receiving of supply by the petitioner and not by respondent No.3. Unless respondent No.3 is a ‘consumer’ with reference to those works, he cannot be a complainant and consequently he cannot maintain a complaint. Respondent No.1 has thoroughly misdirected itself in understanding the true purport of the definitions of the ‘complaint’, ‘complainant’ and ‘consumer’ and thereby committed a patent jurisdictional error in entertaining the complaint of respondent No.3. The whole purport of the grievance of respondent No.3 is that his property is used for extending supply to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that no part of the property of respondent No.3 is used for laying the overhead lines or installing the meter. Thus, the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and is liable for adjudication by a competent court of civil jurisdiction on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by both the parties. Respondent No.1, which is constituted for redressal of grievances of consumers of the licensees arising in course of supply of electricity by the latter to the former, is totally denuded of its jurisdiction to resolve a dispute of the nature raised by respondent No.3. Indeed, by directing respondent No.2 to disconnect, remove and shift the lines, respondent No.1 arrogated to itself the power of a civil court. Such power is not inhered in respondent No.1, whose jurisdiction, as noted above, is constricted by the Regulation so as not to permit it to wander outside the narrow confines of grievance redressal mechanism qua the ‘consumers’ of the licensee. Issue No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner. As regards Issue No.2, admittedly, in the petition filed by respondent No.3, the petitioner is not impleaded as a party. Various functionaries of respondent No.2 are shown as respondents before respondent No.1. It is incomprehensible that respondent No.1 would have thought of entertaining the petition of respondent No.3, let alone granting directions as was done by it, without impleading the petitioner and hearing it because even if respondent No.1 is assumed to have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of respondent No.3, it could not have unilaterally concluded that the land over which the electrical lines were laid and installation of meter was made falls in S.No.392. Further more, the petitioner is the likely affected party if the power supply is disconnected and overhead line and other installations are removed. The principle of law is well settled that any person who is likely to be adversely affected by the proposed order is entitled to be heard before such an adverse order is passed. (See: State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei[1], Bhagat Raja v. Union of India[2], A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India[3], Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[4], S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan[5], Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India[6] and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation[7]) . This basic jurisprudential principle is lost sight of by respondent No.1 before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is vitiated by its failure to observe principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is also answered in favour of the petitioner. Ordinarily, the matter would have been remitted back to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. However, because of the finding on Issue No.1 such need does not arise. If respondent No.3 feels aggrieved by the existence of electrical installations over S.No.392, he is entitled to approach competent court of civil jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. On the premises as above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed, with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) against respondent Nos.1 and 3. ____________________ C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 8-2-2011 L.R. copies to be marked AM [1] AIR 1967 SC 1269 [2] AIR 1967 SC 1606 [3] AIR 1970 SC 150 [4] AIR 1978 SC 597 [5] AIR 1981 SC 136 [6] AIR 1981 SC 818 [7] AIR 1986 SC 180