2026:JHHC:5680

-: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 4891 of 2025

-----

1. Pramod Kumar, S/o Late Shri Madholal, aged about 62 years, R/o 303,

Lotus Enclave, Kilburn Colony, Shiv Puri Path, Hinoo Ranchi, P.Ο.

Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002. (Posted as

Second Member, Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, JBVNL at

Ranchi, Jharkhand.)

2. Saket Bihari Saran, S/o Late Shri Narbadeshwar Prasad, aged about 62

years, R/o Flat No. 401, A Block, Sidhivinayak Apartment, Behind

Yuvraj Palace, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-

834002. (Posted as Second Member, Consumer Grievance Redressal

Forum, JBVNL, Chaibasa at Jamshedpur, Jharkhand).

3. Virendra Pratap Dubey, S/o Late Shri Mundrika Dubey, aged about 61

years, R/o 116, New AG Co-Operative Colony, Kadru, Ranchi, P.Ο.

Doranda, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002. (Posted as

Second Member, Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, JBVNL at

Hazaribagh, Jharkhand)

… … Petitioners

Versus

1. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director,

Engineering Building, H.E.C., Ρ.Ο. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi,

Jharkhand-834004.

2. Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, through its

Secretary, 1

st

Floor, Jharkhand State Housing Board Old Headquarters,

P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834002

… … Respondents

----

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

----

For the Petitioners: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Abhishek Choudhary, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Rahul Saboo, Advocate

----

O R D E R

RESERVED ON 08.01.2026 PRONOUNCED ON 26.02.2026

By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for

the following reliefs:-

a. Quashing the Advertisement No 03/2025 dated

07.08.2025 (Annexure 9), whereby vacancies in the post

of Second Member, Consumer Grievance Redressal

Forum, Ranchi and Chaibasa, currently held by Petitioner

Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, have been notified by

Respondent No. 1, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.

("JBVNL"), and applications therefor invited;

b. Restraining JBVNL from interfering with the service of

2026:JHHC:5680

-: 2 :-

the Petitioners as Members of the extant CGRFs, inter alia

by withholding the extension of two years provided in

terms of Reg. 4.2(2) JSERC (Guidelines for Establishment

for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers, Electricity

Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations, 2020

c. By way of ex-parte ad interim relief, direct the

Respondent No. 1 to not give effect to the Advertisement

No. 03/2025 dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure 9) during the

pendency of the present writ petition;

2. The petitioners were working as Second/Technical Members in

different Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums (CGRF) / Vidyut Upbhokta

Shikayat Niwaran Forums (VUSNF) set up by JBVNL under the Jharkhand

State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for Establishment of

Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers, Electricity Ombudsman

and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations, 2020 (hereinafter called as “the

JSERC Regulations, 2020”), framed under the Electricity Act, 2003. Petitioner

No.1 Pramod Kumar was appointed as Second/Technical Member at Ranchi

on 12.09.2022. He earlier retired as General Manager of JBVNL on

31.08.2022. Petitioner No.2 Saket Bihari Saran was appointed as

Second/Technical Member at Chaibasa/Jamshedpur on 12.09.2022. He

earlier retired as Deputy General Manager of JBVNL on 31.01.2022. Petitioner

No.3 Virendra Pratap Dubey joined as Second/Technical Member at

Hazaribagh on 01.02.2023 after taking voluntary retirement as General

Manager of JBVNL on 31.01.2023.

The Central Government promulgated Electricity (Rights of

Consumers) Rules, 2020, in which Rule 15(1) mandates that Consumer

Grievance Redressal Forums (CGRFs) should be headed by serving officers

of electricity companies, with only one independent member. This rule is

already under challenge in Court in W.P.(C) No. 1377 of 2025, which is

pending. Despite these Central Rules, the Jharkhand Electricity Regulatory

Commission (JSERC) made its own Regulations in 2020 which provides

Constitution of CGRFs consisting of three members- a Judicial Member

(Chairperson), a Technical Member, and an Independent Member. Petitioners

were appointed as Technical Members in 2022–2023. On 11.12.2024 and

23.01.2025, JBVNL (Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited) proposed to close

the existing Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums and create new

2026:JHHC:5680

-: 3 :-

Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums all headed by serving officers. It also

created new posts in advance and clearly stated that existing members would

not get extensions. JBVNL issued an advertisement being Adv. No.3/2025

dated 07.08.2025 to fill the posts held by the Petitioners. This was done

without checking their performance or deciding on their extension. The

Petitioners’ written requests for extension were not replied. Petitioner Nos. 1

and 2 are aggrieved by Respondent No. 1’s decision to deny them an

extension of tenure, by floating Advertisement No. 03/2025 dated 07.08.2025.

The petitioners had earlier challenged this in WP (C) No. 1377/2025 and

seeking stay on the advertisement through I.A. No. 11785/2025. However, on

28.08.2025, the Division Bench dismissed the application, stating that the

challenge to the advertisement was a separate cause of action and the

Petitioners were given liberty to institute appropriate proceedings in order to

challenge the same. Thus, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that

appointment and service conditions are governed by JSERC Regulations,

2020, which allow extension of tenure. He contended that extensions have

been given earlier to other CGRF members. On this background, issuance of

Advertisement No. 03/2025 inviting applications for the very posts held by the

petitioners, without first deciding their extension under Regulation 4.2(2),

amounts to an indirect and unlawful denial of extension, bypassing the

mandatory evaluation of performance. He contended that JBVNL cannot rely

on Rule 15 of Electricity (Rights of Consumers) Rules, 2020 when that rule

itself is under challenge in Court and JSERC Regulations are still valid.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted

that CGRF Members are appointed for 3 years. They cannot claim extension

up to 2 more years, as of right. Distribution Licensee has power not to extend

their tenure. He further submitted that after duly considering the matter,

JBVNL decided not to extend the tenure of the petitioners and instead decided

to fill the vacant posts through fresh open advertisements. He also submitted

that since extension of tenure is not a right of the petitioners, the grant of

extension depends entirely on the discretion and satisfaction of the appointing

authority, which is the Distribution Licensee, and is not mandatory under

Regulation 4.2(2) of JSERC Regulations, 2020. He further argued that the

distribution licensee is not obliged to propose or grant an extension to any

Chairperson or Member of the Forum. As per him, since JBVNL chose to fill

the posts through open recruitment, the question of assessing the petitioners’

2026:JHHC:5680

-: 4 :-

“satisfactory service” does not arise. The advertisement issued for fresh

selection are stated to be in accordance with the regulations, therefore, the

posts were rightly notified as vacant.

5. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the fresh advertisement

on the ground that according to them, the tenure of 3 (three) years, which has

come to an end or coming to an end, as per Clause 4.2 of the JSERC

Regulations 2020 is extendable on satisfactory service. As per them, this

extension is a right on fulfillment of satisfactory service. Once their service is

found satisfactory, there is no other option, but to extend the tenure. It is the

case of the petitioner that since there is no complaint against the petitioner

and the service is satisfactory, their tenure should be extended and if the

same is extended, there is no occasion to come out with fresh advertisement

for appointing fresh members. Petitioners have also prayed to extend their

term.

6. The Distribution Licensee’s argument is just contrary to the

arguments of the petitioners. The petitioners, who are members appointed by

the Distribution Licensee, does not have any vested right so as to claim any

extension of their tenure. When the Distribution Licensee has appointed the

petitioners, who are their nominee in the Forum, the right is absolutely vested

with Distribution Licensee to withdraw them after the period of 3 (three) years.

Additional 2 (two) years’ extension as envisaged in Clause 4.2 of the JSERC

Regulations 2020, is at the pleasure of the Distribution Licensee. As per them,

the word “extendable” clarifies the entire issue, which means that there is no

vested right of extension.

7. On this background, this Court has to decide and interpret Clause

4.2(2) of the JSERC Regulations 2020, which fixes the term of Office and

conditions of service of Chairperson / Members.

8. The JSERC Regulations 2020 for establishment of forum has

been framed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission,

Ranchi, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 181 of the

Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) read with Section 42 (5 to 7). The object for

framing the said Regulations is highlighted in the Regulations itself. These

Regulations were enacted to make the entire system to be consumer friendly

with an intent to provide efficient and effective consumer grievance redressal

machinery and to promote consumer advocacy. Thus, one of the main

purpose of these Regulations is to provide efficient and effective consumer

grievance redressal mechanism. Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 gives

2026:JHHC:5680

-: 5 :-

power to the State Electricity Regulatory Commission to make Regulations.

Section 181(2)(s) provides that the Commission can make Regulations, which

may provide for the time and manner of settlement of grievance under Sub

Section 7 of Section 42 of the Electricity Act. Section 42(5) of the Electricity

Act mandates that the Distribution Licensee should establish a forum for

redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as

may be specified by the State Commission. Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act

provides that if the grievance is not redressed by the Forum, then

representation for redressal of grievance can be made before the

Ombudsman. Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as under: -

“42. Duties of distribution licensee and open access.-(1) It shall

be the duty of a distribution licensee to develop and maintain

an efficient, co-ordinated and economical distribution system

in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance

with the provisions contained in this Act.

(2) …

(3) …

(4) …

(5) Every distribution licensee shall, within six months

from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, whichever

is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the

consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be

specified by the State Commission.

(6) Any consumer, who is aggrieved by non-redressal of

his grievances under sub-section (5), may make a

representation for the redressal of his grievance to an authority

to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed or designated by

the State Commission.

(7) The Ombudsman shall settle the grievance of the

consumer within such time and in such manner as may be

specified by the State Commission.

(8) …”

9. The aforesaid provision provides for a mechanism to constitute

the Grievance Redressal Forum(s) for the consumers. As per Section 42(5) of

the Electricity Act, the Forum has to be established by the Distribution

Licensee but in accordance with the guidelines, which may be specified by the

State Commission. The JSERC Regulation 2020 framed by the State

Commission is one of such guidelines.

10. After going through the said guidelines, one can gather that the

JSERC Regulations, 2020 has been framed for the benefit of the consumers

and the “Forums” are primarily established to redress the grievances of

2026:JHHC:5680

-: 6 :-

consumers against the licensee. The term “complaint” is defined in Clause

2(e) of the JSERC Regulation 2020, which reads as under:-

“2. Definition

e) “Complaint” means any grievance made by a complainant

for:-

i) Defect or deficiency in electricity supply or service provided

by the licensee;

ii) Unfair or restrictive trade practices of licensee in providing

electricity services;

iii) Charging of a price in excess of the price fixed by the

Commission for supply of electricity and allied services;

iv) Any error in billing;

v) Erroneous disconnection of supply;

vi) Electricity services which are unsafe or hazardous to public

life provided in contravention of the provisions of any law or

rule in force; or

vii) Any other grievance related to supply of electricity by the

licensee to the consumers except grievances arising under

Sections 126, 135 to 139, 143, 152 and 161 of the Act.

viii) Non-performance in Standards of Performance, as

stipulated under Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory

Commission (Distribution Licensee’s Standard Performance)

Regulations 2015.”

11. Similarly, Section 2(j) defines ‘defect’ or ‘deficiency’. Section 2(n)

defines ‘Forum’, which means forum for redressal of grievances of the

consumers to be constituted by each Distribution Licensee in terms of Sub

Section (5) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003. This clearly suggests that

the Forum is for the benefit of consumers, who can raise their grievances and

voice their displeasure against the Distribution Licensee for the purpose of

getting relief. Section 2(r) defines the ‘Member’, which means member of the

Forum and includes chairperson. From the aforesaid definition, it is clear that

all the members jointly constitute the Forum.

12. Though as per the Act, Forum has to be constituted by each

Distribution Licensee, but the guidelines for establishment of the Forum has to

be framed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission. These guidelines are

mandatory and statutory in nature and the Distribution Licensee cannot

deviate from the said guidelines nor can evolve their own mechanism. Their

power to constitute the Forum does not mean that they have the power to go

beyond the guidelines or to do any act which is in violation of the same.

13. As per Clause 4.1, each Forum shall consist of three members.

The members would be – one judicial member, who shall be the Chairperson

of the forum, the 2

nd

member shall be a person possessing degree in

2026:JHHC:5680

-: 7 :-

Electrical Engineering / Electrical & Instrumentation / Electrical and Electronics

OR shall be at least a CA/ICWA or MBA Finance from a recognized University

having requisite experience as specified and 3

rd

member shall be an

independent member. The qualification of the Judicial Member and other two

members is prescribed in Clause 4.1 as follows: -

“4.1 The Forum shall consist of three Members one each from

following streams:-

(a) Judicial Member- Judicial Member shall be the Chairperson

of the forum; he shall be a judicial officer, who held the

post not below the rank of Additional District Judge having

20 years of experience in judicial work.

(b) Second Member – One Member shall be possessing degree

in Electrical Engineering / Electrical & Instrumentation /

Electrical and Electronics and having at least 20 (Twenty)

years of experience in the Transmission, Distribution and

Trading of electricity and who is and has been at least

Superintending Engineer / DGM or at an equivalent post in

an Organisation engaged in the business of Transmission,

Distribution and Trading of electricity OR shall be at least a

CA/ICWA or MBA Finance from a recognized University

with twenty (20) years of experience and knowledge of

Accounts and Finance in Government Department /

Commercial Public Undertaking including power sector and

having at least five (5) years working experience in the

grade not below the rank of DGM (F&A) of the State Govt. or

equivalent post. The Licensee may appoint Second Member

having experience of 10 years out of which at least three

years of experience in Accounting and/or revenue and/or

Commercial matters of electricity.

(c) The Third Member shall be Independent Member: The

person shall be representative of a registered

society/NGO/consumer organization having one of its main

objectives as consumer protection with at least 5 years of

standing or alternatively the representing member should

have five years of experience in consumer related matters.

Provided that, a person applying for the post of

Independent Member of the Forum shall not have been in

the employment in any capacity under, or agency of, the

Distribution Licensee for a minimum period of three (3)

years prior to being appointed Independent Member of the

Forum.

(d) The Chairperson (First Member) and the Independent

Member (Third Member) shall be selected through proper

advertisement in Press and on the Website & Notice Board

of the Commission.

(e) The Chairperson (First Member) and the Independent

2026:JHHC:5680

-: 8 :-

Member (Third Member) of the Forum shall be nominated

by the Commission and appointed by the licensee. The

process of the appointment of the Chairperson (First

Member) and the Independent Member (Third Member) of

the Forum shall be initiated by the Commission.

(f) The Distribution Licensee shall propose to the Commission

a panel of names of at least two officers for post of Second

Member of the Forum along-with details of qualification,

experience and background relating to ability, integrity and

standing of each such officer. The Commission shall

consider the names proposed by the licensee and after its

approval; the licensee shall appoint the Second Member.”

14. For the purpose of this writ petition, this Court is concerned only

with respect to qualification, mode of appointment and term of the second

member, provided in Clause 4.1(b) of the JSERC Regulation 2020.

15. From the aforesaid provision, it is quite clear that if a person has

the qualification as prescribed in Clause 4.1(b) of the JSERC Regulation

2020, he can become Second Member of the Forum. This does not mean that

the Second Member must be an employee of the same Distribution Licensee,

who is establishing the Forum. He may be a person or employee of other

Distribution Licensee also. This interpretation gets strength from the same

provision of the JSERC Regulation 2020, which provides that the Licensee

may appoint Second Member amongst its serving member, who is serving in

the grades prescribed therein. The word ‘may’ therein clearly suggests that

there is a scope of appointing Second Member, who is not a serving officer of

the Licensee.

16. The mode of appointment of Second Member is prescribed in

Clause 4.1(f) of the JSERC Regulation 2020, as quoted above. From the

aforesaid provision, it is clear that though the process is to be initiated by the

Distribution Licensee by proposing to the Commission a panel of names of at-

least two officers, but unless the Commission approves a person, the

Licensee cannot appoint the Second Member. The power to appoint the

Second Member does not wholly vests upon the Licensee to its discretion,

rather there are no discretion left with the Distribution Licensee to appoint a

person. It is only the approved person, whose name has been duly approved

by the Commission, has to be appointed. Though in the JSERC Regulation

2020, appointment of Chairperson/Member of Forum has to be made by the

Licensee, but the word ‘appointment’ used therein is only for a limited purpose

of issuing the appointment letters, without any discretion left with the

2026:JHHC:5680

-: 9 :-

Distribution Licensee. To understand this, it is necessary to refer to Clause

4.1(e), quoted above, which provides that the Chairperson and the

Independent Member of the Forum shall be nominated by the Commission

and appointed by the Licensee and the process of appointment of

Chairperson and Independent Member are to be initiated by the Commission.

Only difference is that the process of appointment of Chairperson and First

Member is to be initiated from the side of the Commission but that of the

Second Member is to be initiated from the side of the Distribution Licensee.

Thus, from the aforesaid provision, there is no doubt that even in appointing

the Second Member, there is no discretionary power vested upon the

Licensee. He has to act in terms of the approval given by the Commission.

17. Now what needs to be interpreted is the terms of Office of

Chairperson / Members. The term of the Office of Chairperson / Members is

provided in Clause 4.2 of the JSERC Regulation 2020. Relevant extracts of

Clause 4.2 of the JSERC Regulation 2020 is quoted below: -

“4.2 Term of office and conditions of service of

Chairperson/Members

(1) The age of the person to be considered for appointment, as

Chairperson/Members, shall be minimum 45 (forty-five) years

and maximum 62 (sixty-two) years as on 1" Day of August in

the current year of advertisement.

(2) The Chairperson/Member of the Forum shall be appointed

initially for a period of three years, extendable up to further two

years on satisfactory service or till 65 years (sixty-five) years of

age. whichever is earlier. The Member shall not be eligible for

re-appointment to the same post.

(3) In the event the post of the Chairperson falls vacant, the

senior most members shall act as Chairperson till such time a

regular incumbent is appointed and shall ensure that the

Forum continues to discharge its normal functions.

(4) Any Chairperson/Members may relinquish his office by

giving, in writing, to the Distribution licensee a notice of not

less than three months or by paying three months' salary in

lieu thereof. The distribution licensee, on receipt of such

notice, shall initiate action for filling up of the vacancy which

may occur due to relinquishment of the Chairperson/Member.

(5) The distribution licensee shall, three months before the

superannuation or end of tenure of the Chairperson or Member,

make a reference to the Commission for filling up of the

vacancy.

……

(13) The Commission shall have a general power for

superintendence and control over the forum and the forum

2026:JHHC:5680

-: 10 :-

shall comply with such directions/orders/instructions as the

commission may issue from time to time.”

18. From Clause 4.2 of the guidelines, it is clear that the Chairperson

and/or members of the Forum are initially appointed for three years, but their

term is extendable up to further two years or till the age of 65 years, whichever

is earlier. This extension is subject to satisfactory service. Re-appointment is

not permissible. From the aforesaid clause, it is clear that the term of a

Member including that of the Second Member can be extended. When the

provision of law provides for extension, it has to be decided as to whether the

said extension is mandatory or discretionary, and if it is discretionary, how to

exercise the said discretion.

19. In the instant case, the counsel for the respondents has argued

that since the petitioner is the Second Member and a nominee of the

Distribution Licensee, it is absolutely their prerogative whether to extend the

tenure of the Second Member or not. There cannot be any interference from

any authority.

20. To address this issue, the constitution of the forum has to be

looked into. Clause 4.1, as dealt in hereinbefore, provides that the Forum will

have three Members, (a) one Judicial Member, (b) Second Member and (c) an

Independent Member. Clause 4.1(b) provides that the appointment of the

Second Member will be by the Distribution Licensee, but it is not the sole

prerogative of the Distribution Licensee to appoint any person. As per Clause

4.1(f), the Distribution Licensee shall propose to the Commission a panel of

names of at least two officers for Second Member and only after approval by

the Commission, the Second Member will be appointed by the Distribution

Licensee. This clearly means that without the approval of the Commission,

Second Member cannot be appointed, even though he has to be appointed by

the Distribution Licensee. Further, another important clause is Clause 4.2(13).

As noted above, Clause 4.2 defines / describes terms of Office and conditions

of service of Chairperson and Members. Clause 4.2(13) provides that the

Commission shall have a general power of superintendence over the Forum

and the Forum shall comply with such terms as the Commission may issue

from time to time. This also suggests that the Commission has the power of

superintendence over the Members of the Forum also. These two provisions

clearly suggests that the Second Member, may be an employee or appointed

by the Distribution Licensee, but they are under the control and supervision of

the Commission, once they are appointed. After they are appointed, the

2026:JHHC:5680

-: 11 :-

Distribution Licensee cannot have any control upon them.

21. Though, initially as per Clause 4.2(2), the initial term of a Second

Member is for three years, but same is extendable up to further two years.

The word ‘extendable’ used in this clause, means that their term can be

extended. This means that Second Member does not have any vested right to

get his term extended till 65 years or for further period of two years, whichever

is earlier. This extension has to be linked with satisfactory service as provided

in Clause 4.2(2). Now, once a qualification of satisfactory service has been

backed with the extension, it is the duty to first undertake an exercise as to

whether the service of Second Member is satisfactory or not.

22. The word ‘extendable’ does not give any right for extension and

there cannot also be any straight jacket formula for extension of the term of

office. The clause of extension in each agreement or each contract or in

respect of each laws has to be interpreted, so that the purpose of the

agreement, contract or legislation is served.

23. A particular clause, provision or rule of an enactment has to be

interpreted keeping in mind the purpose of said legislation. A clause/provision

of an enactment cannot be interpreted in such manner, which may defeat the

intent and purpose for which the legislation or that part was promulgated.

While dealing with interpretation of statute, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

State of Gujarat versus R.A. Mehta reported in (2013) 3 SCC 1, at

paragraph 98 has held as under: -

“98. The doctrine of purposive construction may be taken

recourse to for the purpose of giving full effect to statutory

provisions, and the courts must state what meaning the statute

should bear, rather than rendering the statute a nullity, as

statutes are meant to be operative and not inept. The courts

must refrain from declaring a statute to be unworkable. The

rules of interpretation require that construction which carries

forward the objectives of the statute, protects interest of the

parties and keeps the remedy alive, should be preferred

looking into the text and context of the statute. Construction

given by the court must promote the object of the statute and

serve the purpose for which it has been enacted to reduce a

statute to futility. The provision of the statute must be so

construed as to make it effective and operative.” The court

must take a pragmatic view and must keep in mind the purpose

for which the statute was enacted as the purpose of law itself

provides good guidance to courts as they interpret the true

meaning of the Act and thus legislative futility must be ruled

out. A statute must be construed in such a manner so as to

2026:JHHC:5680

-: 12 :-

ensure that the Act itself does not become a dead letter and the

obvious intention of the legislature does not stand defeated

unless it leads to a case of absolute intractability in use. The

court must adopt a construction which suppresses the

mischief and advances the remedy and “to suppress subtle

inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, and

pro private commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and

remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act,

pro bono publico”. The court must give effect to the purpose

and object of the Act for the reason that legislature is

presumed to have enacted a reasonable statute. (Vide M.

Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa [AIR 1961 SC 1107], S.P.

Jain v. Krishna Mohan Gupta [(1987)1 SCC 191 : AIR 1987 SC

222], RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.

[(1987) 1 SCC 424 : AIR 1987 SC 1023], Tinsukhia Electric

Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam [(1989) 3 SCC 709 : AIR 1990

SC 123], SCC p. 754, para 118, UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal

Capoor [(2008) 5 SCC 257 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 263] and Grid

Corpn. Of Orissa Ltd. v. Eastern Metals and Ferro Alloys [(2011)

11 SCC 334].)”

24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, recently, in Vivek Narayan Sharma

versus Union of India, (2023) 3 SCC 1 at paragraph 148 has held as under: -

“148. It is thus clear that it is a settled principle that the modern

approach of interpretation is a pragmatic one, and not

pedantic. An interpretation which advances the purpose of the

Act and which ensures its smooth and harmonious working

must be chosen and the other which leads to absurdity, or

confusion, or friction, or contradiction and conflict between its

various provisions, or undermines, or tends to defeat or

destroy the basic scheme and purpose of the enactment must

be eschewed. The primary and foremost task of the Court in

interpreting a statute is to gather the intention of the

legislature, actual or imputed. Having ascertained the intention,

it is the duty of the Court to strive to so interpret the statute as

to promote or advance the object and purpose of the

enactment. For this purpose, where necessary, the Court may

even depart from the rule that plain words should be

interpreted according to their plain meaning. There need be no

meek and mute submission to the plainness of the language.

To avoid patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity or to avoid

invalidation of a law, the court would be justified in departing

from the so-called golden rule of construction so as to give

effect to the object and purpose of the enactment.

Ascertainment of legislative intent is the basic rule of statutory

construction.”

25. In this case, the issue is extension of the tenure of the Members

2026:JHHC:5680

-: 13 :-

of a Forum, which adjudicates disputes between the Distribution Licensee and

the Consumers. When such forum is constituted, the underlying faith of the

consumers on the Forum has to be established and strengthened. This can be

done only by protecting the independence of the Forum. One has to see that

the Forum is independent and is not bias towards any of the parties to the

dispute. So far as the Forum, here, is concerned, one of the parties to the

dispute invariably will be Distribution Licensee. If a Distribution Licensee is

given wide powers to remove the Second Member, unilaterally, without the

concurrence or approval of the Commission and if it refuses to extend the

period, the independence of the Forum will fade away.

26. A Forum, which has been given a power to adjudicate a dispute,

must be independent. Non-extension of the tenure, without assigning any

reason and without undertaking an exercise to find out as to whether the work

of the Member was satisfactory or not, will undermine the independence,

impartiality and integrity of the said member. Said member will always remain

under the control of one of the party to the dispute, i.e., Distribution Licensee,

which is not good for the health of the Forum.

27. When there is a provision for extension, though even if it is not a

vested right, yet an exercise must be undertaken to arrive at a conclusion

whether the term of a Member needs to be extended or not. Without

undertaking such exercise, if unbridled power is solely vested with the

Distribution Licensee to remove a Member on completion of the initial period

of appointment, without considering whether it is necessary to extend the term

or not, will also amount to giving an upper hand to one of the party to the

dispute.

28. Another aspect, which needs to be looked into for the purpose of

this case is process for removal of the Chairperson and Member of the Forum.

Here Member means the Second Member also. Clause 5.2 of the Regulations

provides for the grounds on which a Member can be removed. Clause 5.2 of

the Regulations reads as under: -

“5. Removal of Member / Chairperson

(1) …

(2) The Distribution Licensee or the Commission on its own

may, by order, remove from office the Chairperson or any

Member if he –

(a) Has been adjudicated insolvent;

(b) Has been convicted of an offence which involves moral

turpitude;

(c) Has become physically or mentally incapable of acting as a

2026:JHHC:5680

-: 14 :-

Chairperson/Member.

(d) Has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to

affect prejudicially his function as a Member.

(e) Has so abused his position as to render his continuance in

office prejudicial to the public interest;

(f) Has been guilty of proven misbehavior.

Provided that no Chairperson or Member shall be

removed from his office on any ground specified in clauses (c),

(d), (e) and (f) unless the Commission, on a reference being

made in this behalf by the Distribution licensee or the

Commission on its own, has, on an inquiry, held that the

Chairperson or any Member ought to be, on such ground or

grounds be removed.”

29. The proviso to the said regulation provides that to remove a

Member on the grounds specified in (c), (d), (e) and (f) a reference has to be

made to the Commission by the Distribution Licensee or the Commission can

on its own motion make an inquiry. This means that the aforesaid provision

clearly provides that the Distribution Licensee can remove a Member only

when grounds (a) and (b) are fulfilled. Clause 5(2)(a) and 5(2)(b) relate to

adjudicated insolvency and adjudicated conviction. These two conditions,

according to me, does not need any further independent inquiry or

adjudication. Thus, a power has been given to the Distribution Licensee to

remove a Member on pre adjudicated proved ground. So far as other grounds

are concerned, the same needs independent inquiry, where the grounds of

removal is based on conclusion of independent enquiry, and depends on its

finding, the Distribution Licensee has not been given the absolute power to

remove the Member. In those cases, it is only the Commission, who has to

first make an enquiry and based on that report, removal can be effected. This

provision of law also safeguards and upholds the independence and

impartiality of a Member. To suspend a Member also a Distribution Licensee

has to consult the Commission, which is evident from Clause 5(3) of the

Regulations.

30. Clause 12 of the said Regulations deals with findings of the

Forum. Second proviso of Clause 12.2 provides that in absence of a

Chairperson, senior most Member shall preside over the proceeding. This

means the senior most Member of the Forum, in a case, may be the Second

Member also, who will have the right to preside in absence of the

Chairperson. A Member, who is supposed to act as a Chairperson, needs to

be independent and impartial. There should not be any fear of reduction of

2026:JHHC:5680

-: 15 :-

tenure or non-extension in the mind of any Member. If there remains any

apprehension or fear, the same will affect his integrity, impartiality and

independence. Once the exclusive unbridled power is given to the Distribution

Licensee to not to extend the tenure without any reason, inspite of satisfactory

performance, the same will have a severe negative impact on the integrity,

impartiality and independence of the Member. All these basic qualities can be

compromised.

31. A person being appointed as a Second Member in terms of the

Regulations is well aware that his initial tenure is for three years, but can be

extended for another period of two years or till the age of 65 years, provided

that his/her performance is satisfactory. The said Member cannot claim

extension beyond two years and cannot claim to remain as a Member beyond

65 years, but he/she has some expectations of extension of a two year period,

provided his/her services are satisfactory. The word ‘extendable’ in this case,

considering the nature of work, rather becomes mandatory on satisfactory

service. No discretion is left open to the Distribution Licensee to remove the

second member when his/her services are satisfactory. To adjudicate whether

the services are satisfactory, his performance etc. definitely needs to be

evaluated and also the different grounds mentioned in Clause 5(2) needs to

be considered. Once any of the grounds mentioned in Clause 5(2) are not

established and it is found that the services are satisfactory, tenure must be

extended.

32. Thus, from what has been discussed above, the Clause 4.2(2) of

the JSERC Regulations, 2020, which deals with appointment/renewal of term

of the Second Member, has been interpreted considering the purpose of

establishment of the Disputes Redressal Forum and the purpose for which the

Members are appointed.

33. In the context of the present case, since the Forum is to

adjudicate the dispute, the Members, who are adjudicating the disputes, must

be independent. The Distribution Licensee should not have any power, which

can unduly influence the Member of the Forum directly or remotely. Curtailing

the tenure by the Distribution Licensee, who is one of the parties to the

dispute, will have an unbridled power to influence the Member of the Forum.

The independence of the said Member will come under serious threat,

consequently, the independence of the Forum can also be questioned.

34. In the light of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as

quoted above and in the above background and discussion made in this

2026:JHHC:5680

-: 16 :-

judgment, the entire Clause 4.2(2) of the JSERC Regulations, 2020 and the

word ‘extendable’ are being interpreted, considering the fact and the purpose

for which it has been provided. The word ‘extendable’ in Clause 4.2(2) of the

JSERC Regulations, 2020 is to be read as mandatory, only subject to if the

performance of the Member is satisfactory. Once the performance of a

Member is found to be satisfactory, his extension is a matter of course and the

Commission has to be approached by the Distribution Licensee with a

recommendation to extend the tenure.

35. Considering what has been held above, I hold that the

respondents must evaluate performance of the Second Members and if the

performance is satisfactory, their tenure must be extended. Without

undertaking the evaluation process and without arriving at a conclusion as to

whether their tenure needs to be extended or not, the Distribution Licensee

cannot take any unilateral decision to close the tenure of the Second Member

and take steps to appoint fresh Second Member for the Forum.

36. Consequent to what has been held above, the advertisement

No.03/25 dated 07.08.2025, whereby the respondents have decided to seek

applications for appointment of Second Member of Consumer Grievance

Redressal Forum, Ranchi and Chaibasa, without undertaking the process of

evaluating the performance of Second Members, is set aside. Respondents

are directed to evaluate the performance of the Second Members and only if

their performance is not found satisfactory, proceed to fill up the posts of the

Second Members.

37. This writ petition stands allowed. Pending interlocutory

applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Ananda Sen, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi

Dated 26

th

February, 2026

Kumar/Cp-02

Uploaded on 26.02.2026