Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Lrd. and Another vs Om Prakash and Another

M.N. Bhandari, J.—By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 11.03.2010 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat.

It is a case where a demand was raised by the Petitioner herein over and above, the demand raised at the time of release of electricity connection. The Permanent Lok Adalat set aside the demand raised by the Petitioner. This was after taking note of the decision of this Court in case of J.V.V.N.L. v. Mangal Ram as referred therein.

Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and secondly, while adjudicating the matter, evidence led by the Petitioner was not looked into.

I have considered both the submissions made by learned Counsel for Petitioner.

So far as the scope to adjudicate the dispute is concerned, provisions of Section 22C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short "the Act of 1987") is very clear, which is quoted thus:

22C(8) - Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under Sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute.

Perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that if no compromise is arrived at between the parties, the dispute is to be decided. In the light of aforesaid, I am not convinced with the first argument raised by learned Counsel for Petitioner.

So far as the second argument is concerned, demand notice has been issued based on audit objection. This is taking note of the distance of place of connection. The para meters to release of connection in urban and out of urban areas are different. Noticing the default by the audit party, Petitioner raised another demand. The Permanent Lok Adalat taking into consideration that similar controversy was earlier decided holding action of the Petitioner to be illegal and the same view has been taken by this Court in the case of J.V.V.N.L v. Mangal Ram, demand so raised was set aside. This was precisely for the reason that when demand was raised at the initial stage and is 3 being satisfied by the consumer, new demand for it cannot be raised. The Permanent Lok Adalat considered all the material available before it and accordingly, I do not find any error therein.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error in the order impugned, thus the writ petition is dismissed.