# Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Lucknow & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 640
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-31
- **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 30717 of 2019
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/purvanchal-vidyut-vitran-nigam-limited-lucknow-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45107
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section
126 - Assessment - unauthorized use of
electricity , Section 127 - Appeal to
appellate authority - U.P. Electricity
Regulatory
Commission
(Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity
Ombudsman) Regulations, 2007 - U.P.
Electricity Code, 2005 - Clause 5.6 -
defective meter - procedure when a meter is
suspected
to
be
defective
-
no
ascertainment or adjudication by authorities
concerned that meter was actually running
slow - Hence, authorities had no power to
make any assessment.

Respondent
no.3
-
commercial
electric
connection - inspection carried out at the
premises of Consumer - Petitioner 2, on the
basis of MRI report, proposed assessment under
Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 - show cause
notice informing Respondent-3 that meter was
found running slow by 33% - an assessment of
Rs.
96,302/-
is
proposed
where
against
Respondent No.3 may submit objection, if any,
within 15 days. (Para -23)

HELD:- Unless the fact that meter was defective
and running slow by 33% is ascertained in
accordance with procedure prescribed in Clause
5.6 of Code, 2005, no further assessment could
have been made. Moreso assessment could not
have been made for unauthorised use of electricity
since it was a case of alleged slow running of
meter. (Para - 24)

Petition dismissed (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Clause 6-A of the MS-HSD Order, 2005
for blending with high speed diesel and as
per the terms specified therein the same
would be
subject
to
the
regulatory
conditions provided for under the MS-HSD
Order, 2005. The powers of search and
seizure were accordingly be available to the
authorised officers with a view to securing
compliance of the provisions of the Control
Order 2005 or where there is reason to
believe that any of the provisions of the
control order have been, are being or are
about to be contravened.

40. The retail outlet of the petitioner
was inspected and it was found that the
stocks contained in the under ground tank
were being adulterated with kerosene oil
and accordingly an F.I.R. dated 31.08.2019
was lodged against the petitioner under
Section 420 IPC read with Section 3/7
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, wherein
it has been stated that the provisions of the
MS-HSD Order, 2005 as amended by the
Amendment Order 2017 and also the
guidelines under the Government Order
dated 27.10.2016 had been contravened.
Accordingly the powers of search and
seizure
exercised
by
the
respondent
authorities as per the provisions of Clause 7
of the MS-HSD Order, 2005 cannot be
faulted with.

41. As a consequence the reliefs as
sought in the present writ petition with
regard to quashing of the sealing order and
opening of the seal of the under ground
tank of the retail unit of the petitioner
cannot be granted at this stage. The writ
petition thus fails and is accordingly
dismissed.

42. We may, however, take note that
as per the provisions contained under
Clause 8 of the MS-HSD Order, 2005 the
sample of the product is required to be
forwarded within ten days to any of the
laboratories mentioned in Schedule III or to
any other such laboratory which may have
been notified by the Government in the
Official Gazette. The laboratories as
specified for the purpose are required to
furnish the test report to the authorised
officer within twenty days of receipt of
sample at the laboratory and the authorised
officer
is
thereafter
required
to
communicate the test result to the dealer
and also the oil company within five days
of receipt of test results from the laboratory
for appropriate action.

43. The aforementioned provisions as
prescribed in Clause 8 of the MS-HSD
Order, 2005 are to be followed and in case
the proceedings with regard to forwarding
of the sample of the product, obtaining the
test result and communicating the same to
the
dealer/petitioner,
have
not
been
concluded by the respondent authorities,
the
same
would
be
concluded,
expeditiously, preferably within a period of
six weeks from the date of presentation of a
certified copy of this order.
----------
(2020)09ILR A640
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

WRIT - C No. 30717 of 2019

Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Lucknow & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel
for
the
Petitioners:
9 All. Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Lucknow & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
641
Sri Kapil Dev Singh Rathore

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section
126 - Assessment - unauthorized use of
electricity , Section 127 - Appeal to
appellate authority - U.P. Electricity
Regulatory
Commission
(Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity
Ombudsman) Regulations, 2007 - U.P.
Electricity Code, 2005 - Clause 5.6 -
defective meter - procedure when a meter is
suspected
to
be
defective
-
no
ascertainment or adjudication by authorities
concerned that meter was actually running
slow - Hence, authorities had no power to
make any assessment.

Respondent
no.3
-
commercial
electric
connection - inspection carried out at the
premises of Consumer - Petitioner 2, on the
basis of MRI report, proposed assessment under
Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 - show cause
notice informing Respondent-3 that meter was
found running slow by 33% - an assessment of
Rs.
96,302/-
is
proposed
where
against
Respondent No.3 may submit objection, if any,
within 15 days. (Para -23)

HELD:- Unless the fact that meter was defective
and running slow by 33% is ascertained in
accordance with procedure prescribed in Clause
5.6 of Code, 2005, no further assessment could
have been made. Moreso assessment could not
have been made for unauthorised use of electricity
since it was a case of alleged slow running of
meter. (Para - 24)

Petition dismissed (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orisa
Ltd. (SOUTHCO) Vs Sri Sita Ram Rice Mill,
(2012) 2 SCC 108

2. Smt. Amrawati Devi Vs Purvanchal Vidyut
Vitran Nigam Limited & anr. 2009(2) AWC 1189
Executive Engineer
3. Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. &
anr. Vs Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
& Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.)

1. This writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India has been filed
by Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
through its Managing Director (hereinafter
refererred
to
as
''PVVNL')
and
its
Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban
Distribution
Division,
Gorakhpur
(hereinafter referred to as "EE, EUDD,
Gorakhpur") assailing order dated 28th
August,
2018
passed
by
Electricity
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum,
Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as
''ECGRF') rejecting petitioner's application
for recall of order dated 16.6.2017, passed
ex-parte by Respondent 2. Petitioners have
also challenged the order dated 5.6.2007
passed by Respondent 2, ECGRF originally
whereby on the complaint of Respondent 3,
Respondent 2 has held that petitioners have
illegally recovered Rs. 96,320/- from
Respondent 3 and is bound to refund same
and has consequently issued direction for
refund of said amount along with interest at
the rate 6% per annum.

2. Facts in brief giving rise to present
writ petition are that M/s Navya Motors
situated
at
Mohalla
Nausad,
Sadar
Gorakhpur has a commercial electric
connection with contracted load of 20
kilowatt bearing SC No. 5360049295. Rate
schedule for that purpose of computation of
electricity consumption charges payable by
consumer i.e. Respondent 3 is governed by
Tariff, LMV2. For recording quantum of
consumption
of
electricity,
electronic
computerized meter No. UPU20183 was
installed at premises of Respondent 3 i.e.
Consumer.
642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. On 21.1.2017 an inspection was
carried out at the premisses of Consumer
by E.E.,EUDD, Gorakhpur pursuant to
Chief Engineer (Distribution) Gorakhpur's
(hereinafter
referred
to
C.E.(D),
Gorakhpur)
letter
dated
20.1.2017.
Inspecting authority checked meter No.
UPU20183 and found current and voltage
of all three faces in meter, correct.

4. Thereafter again on 30.1.2017
checking was made and current and voltage
on all three phases of meter was found
correct.
A
report
was
submitted
by
EE,EUDD, Gorakhpur on 30.1.2017 to this
effect but he also added that in the MRI
report of meter, current without volts was
shown for 24 times between 29th June, 2015
to 6th May, 2016. In this regard, MRI report
was also appended to letter dated 30.1.2017.
Despite the fact that no defect was found in
the meter as such, EE,EUDD, Gorakhpur i.e.
Petitioner 2, on the basis of MRI report,
proposed assessment under Section 126 of
Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter after
referred to as ''Act 2003') and sent a show
cause notice dated 4th February, 2017
informing Respondent-3 that meter was
found running slow by 33%, therefore, an
assessment of Rs. 96,302/- is proposed where
against
Respondent
No.3
may
submit
objection, if any, within 15 days.

5. The Assessment- sheet, which is
placed on record at page 61, shows that
assessment was made for the period of
June, 2015 to June 2016. Aforesaid amount
was deposited by Respondent-3 but then he
submitted
a
complaint
dated
22nd
February, 2017 to ECGRF alleging that
under threat of disconnection, Respondent3 was compelled to deposit Rs. 96320/-
though no defect in meter was found during
checking, made twice, therefore, aforesaid
amount be directed to be refunded.

6. Petitioners, it appears, despite
notice issued by ECGRF, did not submit
response. Hence Respondent-2 decided the
matter exparte vide order dated 6.5.2017
and directed refund of Rs. 96,320/- to
Consumer. Petitioners filed recall/review
application which has been rejected by
order dated 28.8.2018.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners
contended that MRI data shows defect of
''Current
without
Volts'
and
Current
Terminal shorting on different occasions,
hence petitioners were entitled to make
assessment under Section 126 of Act, 2003
as it amounts to "unauthorized use of
electricity". MRI report being computerized
record is conclusive material to prove that
electricity meter has been tempered and
same could not have been ignored unless
''Consumer' shows positively that said data
is unreliable. He contended that Consumer
was using electricity beyond sanctioned
load and thus it was within ambit of the
term "unauthorized use of electricity" and
in such a case respondent-2 had no
jurisdiction, since matter could have been
examined only by statutory forum provided
under section 126 and 127 of Act, 2003.
Reliance is placed on Supreme Court
judgment in Southern Electricity Supply
Company of Orisa Ltd. (SOUTHCO)
and another Vs. Sri Sita Ram Rice Mill,
2012 (2) SCC 108. He submitted that in the
matter of assessment governed by Section
126, Adjudicatory Forum provided under
U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and
Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2007
is not applicable and, therefore, impugned
orders are patently without jurisdiction.

8. We have heard counsel for
petitioners on the question of "jurisdiction
of Respondent-2" and also "whether
9 All. Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Lucknow & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
643
assessment in case would be governed by
Section 126 or not".

9. It is evident from record that a
checking was made by officials of PVVNL
(Petitioner-1) on 21.1.2017 on the premises
of Consumer (Respondent-3). Checking
report is on page 67 of paper book.
Checking
team
found
various
seals
installed on various parts of meter, intact
and correct. It also found voltage and
current, correct, on all three phases. It also
tested meter on the load and found load
distributed on all phases, correctly. No
tempering was found on meter seals which
may suggests any external handling by
Consumer himself or through its agent,
with meter or seals affixed thereon.

10. Second checking was made on
30th January, 2017. Checking report of
30th January, 2017 has not been placed on
record but learned counsel for petitioners
could not dispute that what was observed in
checking held on 21.1.2017 was also found
on 30.1.2017 and no irregularity of any
kind was noticed by checking team of
PVVNL.

11. He, however, placed reliance on
the report of Meter Reading Instrument i.e.
MRI showing data recorded in the
computer on 12th January, 2017 that
between 29th June, 2015 to 6th May, 2016
there was 24 occasions when discrepancy
of "current without volt" was noted in
computerized uploaded data. On 7.11.2016
a similar defect without volt was recorded.
Duration of aforesaid fault ranges between
6 minutes to 89 days.

12. This Court inquired from learned
counsel for petitioners to explain as to what
does petitioners mean by phrase "current
without voltage". He stated that in technical
term flow of electricity and its pace is
called voltage and when it meet resistance
then consequence is creation of current. But
how there can be a current without voltage
and how it can occur on its own and get
rectified when there is no allegation of any
tampering with meter seal, meter body etc.,
in other words when nobody has touched
meter, then in what circumstances this
situation may occur and disappear, on this
aspect learned counsel for petitioners was
not capable of explaining things and after
receiving instructions said that even the
officers concerned were not able to explain
anything.

13. When questioned, learned counsel
for petitioners could not dispute, that no
tempering with meter seals was found.
Hence it cannot be said that meter was
touched or altered by Consumer at any
point of time. He also could not dispute that
alleged defect on "current without volts"
recorded in MRI report, was not rectified or
corrected by any one but it occurred and
rectified suo moto. At least MRI report did
not show any reason for the alleged
discrepancies. From meter seals position
which were found in order, it can not be
said that Consumer himself or any of its
agent has tampered with the meter in any
manner so as to cause such discrepancies.

14. Further, shows cause notice dated
4th February, 2017 was not issued on the
allegation that Respondent Consumer was
using electricity 'unauthorisedly' by doing
himself something with meter, which is
unauthorised, but it states that the meter
was found running slow by 33%. In other
words
Assessing
Officer
suggested
improper running of the meter developing
some snag and thus running slow which
may be for any reason of occurrence of any
defect in the meter. Show cause notice
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nowhere suggests that assessment was
proposed on the ground of "unauthorised
use of electricity" by Respondent-3 i.e.
Consumer.

15. The expression ''unauthorized use
of electricity' has been explained in Section
126 of Act, 2003 and explanation (b)
thereof defines
"unauthorised
use of
electricity" which is as under:

"(b)
"unauthorised
use
of
electricity" means the usage of electricity-

(i) by any artificial means; or

(ii) by a means not authorised by
the concerned person or licensee; or

(iii) through a tampered meter;
or

(iv) for the purpose other than
for which the usage of electricity was
authorised; or

(v) for the premises or areas
other than those for which the supply of
electricity was authorised." (emphasis
added)

16. We repeatedly enquired for
learned counsel for petitioner as to under
which sub clause of expression (b) of
Section 126 of Act, 2003 the alleged
assessment of 33% slow running of meter
would fall to which learned counsel for
petitioners,
could
give
no
reply,
whatsoever. He also could not dispute that
petitioners have not tested meter and its
accuracy in Test lab in accordance with
procedure prescribed under statute to find
out, whether it was defective and actually
running slow.

17. Attention of learned counsel for
petitioners was drawn to Clause 5.6 of U.P.
Electricity Code, 2005 (hereinafter referred
to as "Code, 2005") which deals with
subject of defective meter and contains
procedure when a meter is suspected to be
defective. He could not dispute that a
defective meter has to be dealt under
Clause 5.6 of Code, 2005. Aforesaid Clause
has been considered by Division Bench of
this Court in Smt. Amrawati Devi vs.
Purvanchal
Vidyut
Vitran
Nigam
Limited and another, 2009(2) AWC 1189
and it has been laid down therein that
before declaring a meter defective, it has to
be tested in a Test Lab by giving
information to consumer and in his
presence, if he chose to remain present
after receiving information and if no such
procedure is followed, no assessment by
treating the meter to be defective can be
made. Paras 6, 10 and 11 of the judgment
read as under:

"6. From reading of Clause 5.6
(c) (iii) it is clear that this clause in
unequivocal
terms
declares
that
the
defective meter after sealing in presence of
consumer, shall be tested, at licensee''s
lab/independent lab/Electrical Inspector,
as agreed by the consumer. Therefore, the
agreement by the consumer is essential for
testing of the meter either at the laboratory
of the Nigam or at the laboratory of some
other independent agency. It further
provides that option exercised by consumer
once cannot be changed. The clause,
therefore, empowers the authorities to seal
the meter and get it tested with consumer''s
agreement. Since the clause operates
harshly against the consumer it has to be
construed strictly. The consumer has a
right to get the meter tested with
independent
agency.
The
authorities,
therefore, have a corresponding duty to
apprise the consumer of the right. Failure
to discharge this duty, which flows from
Sub-clause (c) (iii) by the authorities while
exercising their right to send the meter for
testing, renders the entire proceedings for
9 All. Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Lucknow & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
645
sealing the meter irregular and illegal.
Annexure-3 dated 26.11.2008 does not
comply with this requirement."

"10. In our opinion, in absence of
intimation of Clause 5.6 (c) (iii) of the
Code, 2005, the Petitioner could not be
deemed to have waived her right to
exercise her option to get her meter tested
at independent laboratory. To be fair to the
Nigam as well as consumer, a notice is
required to be given by the Nigam to the
consumer as to whether the consumer
wants to get the defective meter tested at
the laboratory of the Nigam or by
Electrical Inspector or by an independent
agency. The answer of the notice has to be
given by the consumer. After the option is
exercised by the consumer and he agrees to
get the meter tested at the laboratory of the
Nigam or Electrical Inspector, then the
Nigam may fix the date for testing the
meter. If the consumer exercises his option
to get the meter tested from outside agency,
the list of the names of the outside agency
approved by the Nigam should be intimated
to the consumer so that he may choose any
one of the outside agency and according to
the option of the consumer. The outside
agency may test the meter and its finding
about testing of meter would be final. It is
after following this procedure that the
option exercised by consumer cannot be
changed. The decision on the basis of
option exercised by the consumer, and the
report of the test laboratory shall be final
and binding on the licensee as well as on
the consumer. But the Nigam did not
inform the Petitioner to exercise her option
on 26.11.2008 when the meter of the
Petitioner was sealed and she was
informed to appear on 4.12.2008 for testing
of the meter.

11. We are of the considered
opinion that after sealing the meter the
Nigam must serve a notice, on which it
should be printed in bold capital letters,
intimating
the
consumer
or
his
representative to exercise his option either
to get the meter tested by the Electrical
Inspector or at the laboratory of the Nigam
or the consumer may exercise his option to
get his meter tested from one of the outside
agencies approved by the Nigam mentioned
in the notice. Once the consumer exercises
his option then immediately a date has to
be fixed for testing of the meter in the
presence of the consumer."

18. When the matter in respect of
defective meter is covered by Clause 5.6,
assessment of theft of energy on the ground
of unauthorised use of electricity cannot be
made as it is a different contingency. The
question of tempering of meter resulting in
unauthorised use of electricity etc. is not
something which can be said to be covered
by the terms defective meter.

19. Whenever a claim is made by
electricity supplier that meter installed in
the premises of consumer is defective and,
therefore, lesser consumption is recorded
and consumer is liable to pay something
more, then two questions have to be
explained.
Firstly,
whether
meter
is
defective, and when this question is
answered
in
affirmative
the
second
question would be what is the shortage of
energy which has been billed to consumer
and he is liable to be pay further.

20. As has been said, the manner in
which a meter shall be ascertained to be
defective is provided in Clause 5.6 of Code,
2005 and that has not been done. There is
no
ascertainment,
whether
meter
is
defective or not, hence question of
ascertainment of further billing would not
arise. Tempering of energy, theft of
electrical energy or unauthorised use of
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
electrical energy are something different
than what is claimed to be "defective
meter" and on account whereof short
billing to consumer.

21. Learned counsel for petitioners
placed reliance on a Supreme Court's
decision in Executive Engineer, Southern
Electricity Supply Company of Orissa
Ltd. and another vs. Sri Seetaram Rice
Mill, 2012(2) SCC 108 but we do not find
that it was a case where electricity supplier
claimed that there was a defect in the mater
and still assessment was made under
Section 126(1). Therein the admitted facts
were that consumer, a partnership firm, had
established a small scale industrial unit for
production of rice and for this purpose had
electrical connection with contracted load
classified as "medium industry category".
An assessment was made for unauthorised
use of electricity on 25.07.2009 under
Section 126(1) of Act, 2003. Consumer
was given opportunity to file objection, if
any. No objection was filed and instead
consumer filed a writ petition stating that
provisional assessment made by electricity
authorities on the ground of unauthorised
use of electricity, is illegal. Department
contended that there was a report dated
10.06.2009
showing
over
drawl
of
maximum demand by consumer and it
amounts to unauthorised use of electricity.
High Court decided matter by holding that
"unauthorised use of electricity" is a term
exhaustively explained by Explanation to
Section 126 and overdrawl of maximum
demand would not fall under the scope of
unauthorised use of electricity. When
matter
went
to
Supreme
Court,
it
formulated the following three questions:

"1.
Wherever
the
consumer
consumes electricity in excess of the
maximum of the contracted load, would the
provisions of Section 126 of the 2003 Act
be attracted on its true scope and
interpretation?

2. Whether the High Court, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, was
justified in interfering with the provisional
order of assessment/show cause notice
dated 25th July, 2009, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India?

3. Was the writ petition before the
High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India not maintainable
because of a statutory alternative remedy
being available under Section 127 of the
2003 Act?"

22. Question of defective meter, as
such, was neither examined by High Court
nor
Supreme
Court
and,
therefore,
aforesaid judgment, in our view, does not
help petitioners.

23. Moreover, in the present case, an
expert body, i.e., Consumer Grievance
Redressal Forum, Gorakhpur, has already
examined the matter vide order dated
28.08.2018. Learned counsel for petitioners
could not dispute that in the checking,
current and voltage on all the three phases
in the meter was found correct, twice, but
in MRI report there was display of certain
period of "current without volt" for which
no reason could be explained as to how it
happened. When there was no tempering in
the meter and current and voltage in all the
three phases was found twice correct no
case of an unauthorized use of electricity is
made out.

24. Even in the show cause notice
dated 04.02.2017 (Annexure-4 to writ
petition), assessment was not proposed on
"unauthorised use of electricity" but on the
ground that "meter was found running slow
9 All. Sudhir Kumar Maheshwari Vs. A.D.J. Bulandshahar Ors.
647
by 33%". That being so, unless the fact that
meter was defective and running slow by
33% is ascertained in accordance with
procedure prescribed in Clause 5.6 of
Code, 2005, no further assessment could
have been made. Admittedly, procedure
laid down in Clause 5.6 was not observed.
There is no ascertainment or adjudication
by authorities concerned that meter was
actually running slow. Hence, authorities
had no power to make any assessment.
Moreso assessment could not have been
made for unauthorised use of electricity
since it was a case of alleged slow running
of meter.

25. We, therefore, find no merit in
writ petition. Dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2020)09ILR A647
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

WRIT - C No. 33434 of 2013

Sudhir Kumar Maheshwari ...Petitioner
Versus
A.D.J. Bulandshahar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.M. Srivastava, Sri Neeraj Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pankaj Rai

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act,1988 -
Section 166 & Central Motor Vehicle
Rules,1989-challenge to- recall of award
of Tribunal-the same refused by Tribunal
as Tribunal has no inherent power to
recall or review its award-registration
certificate filed by the petitioner was
sufficient evidence that the vehicle had a
fitness certificate valid for two years -
failure to file fitness certificate is not
material
and
sufficient
to
hold
the
petitioner-error apparent on the face of
record could be a ground for review if
Tribunal had the substantive power to
review its order on merits-the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal has no power to
review its order on merits.(Para 1 to 20)

B. It is settled legal proposition that
unless the statute/rules so permit, the
review application is not maintainable in
case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In
the absence of any provision in the Act
granting an express power of review, it is
manifest that a review could not be made
and the order in review, if passed, is ultra
vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Para
6) (E-6)
List of Cases cited: -

1. Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs Central Govt.
Industrial Tribunal & ors., (1980) (Sup) SCC 420
2. Sunita Devi Singhania Hospital Trust & anr.
Vs U.O.I. & anr.(2008) 16 SCC 365

3. Sandhya Vaish & anr. Vs New India Insurance
Co. Ltd. & ors.,(2010) 81 ALR 360

4.
Shaurabh
Agarwal
Vs
Addl.Commr.(judicial),Agra
Mandal,
Agra
&
ors.,(2011) 114 RD 217

5. Naresh Kumar & ors. Vs Govt. (NCT of
Delhi),(2019) 9 SCC 416

6. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajendra
Singh & ors.,(2000) 3 SCC P. 581

7. Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union Vs Birla Cotton
Spinning And Weaving Mills Ltd. & anr.(2005)
13 SCC 777

8. Debi Prasad & ors. Vs Khelawan & ors.,
(1956) ALL. L.J. 13

9. Smt. Raj Kumari Vs Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal,Jaunpur,(2002) ALJ 833

(Delivered by Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.)