HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Bachan Singh

THIS First Appeal No. 569 of 1993 has been filed by the Haryana State Electricity Board against the order of the State Commission, Haryana dated 4.10.93 in Complaint Case No. 9/93 directing the appellant to restore the electricity connection of Shri Bachan Singh and also pay to him a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the losses he has incurred for the non-supply of electricity for a period of more than 2 years.

SHRI Bachan Singh, who is the respondent before us, was a land owner in Village Balti, Naraingarh. He applied for an electric connection for his tube-well under the priority scheme and deposited the required amount for this purpose. After a visit of the site and the scrutiny of the application by the officials of the Haryana State Electricity Board a viability report was prepared for the release of connection on the priority basis and in compliance therewith the respondent deposited Rs. 3,500/- on the 6th May, 1992. Subsequently, a Demand Notice dated 2nd June, 1992 was issued to the respondent advising him that as his request for installation of the tube-well connection has been accepted, he should submit a test report after installing the necessary equipment for the supply of electricity. Accordingly, the respondent completed all the requisite requirements in this regard involving a sizeable financial investment. Thereafter, the H.S.E.B. issued the supply sanction in his favour and also erected three poles between the transformer and the site of his tube-well. However, on the 5th December, 1992 a Sub-Divisional Officer of the H.S.E.B. informed the respondent that his aforesaid connection cannot be released as per the latest instructions from the higher authorities. The case of the respondent before the State Commission was that this communication of 5th December, 1992 amounts to deficiency in service as it deprived him of electricity connection which had been duly sanctioned and for obtaining which he had invested a sizeable amount in having necessary equipment etc. installed at the tube-well. The State Commission, Haryana, after recording the evidence of the respondent as well as the Executive Engineer of the Board and after a careful perusal of the relevant documents came to the conclusion that "there was a patent deficiency on the part of the Board in the matter of supply of electric energy extended out to the consumer- respondent and, therefore, he is entitled to the removal of the said deficiency and compensation for somewhat patent negligence in denying the same, if not virtually a mala fide action for dubious considerations as has, in fact, been alleged by the respondent though it is difficult of conclusive proof". It is against this order that the H.S.E.B. is appellant before us. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent and have carefully perused the record and the detailed order of the State Commission, Haryana.

The main grounds of appeal filed by the Board are : (i) that it is the discretion of the appellant-Board to sanction a connection or not under the priority scheme; and (ii) that it was a case of unforeseen circumstances which emerged only after the sanction of the connection orders were issued in favour of the respondent, that the appellant-Board was forced to change its decision. The circumstance in this regard is a protest made by the villagers and various representations given by them to the Board to reconsider their decision to grant the-connection to the respondent. Keeping in consideration the larger interests of the villagers, the Board decided to change its earlier decision of giving a power connection for the tube-well to the respondent. It has also been stated in the appeal that a direction to the appellant-Board to give connection to the respondent may invoke a hostile reaction from the villagers leading to law and order problem.

IN effect there are two grounds on which this appeal has been preferred one relates to the instructions issued by the Chief Engineer to his Subordinate Superintending Engineers in regard to such connections and the second relates to the protest by the villagers against giving electricity connection to a tube-well from the same transformer which feeds their domestic light system. The operative part of the instructions on the basis of which the respondent was denied electricity even after sanction of connection is as follows : "It is further desired that so far as practicably possible, village distribution transformers should be meant exclusively for village load and future tube-well connections should not be fed from these transformers. Steps may be taken in phases to provide additional separate transformers for feeding tube-wells, wherever village transformers are presently feeding mixed load".

These instructions are of 1987 whereas the service connection was sanctioned to the respondent in August, 1992 - 5 years after the said instructions. Moreover, these instructions are in the nature of advisory suggestions rather than statutory directions. These were not issued by the Board but by one of its Chief Engineers to his Subordinate Superintending Engineers by way of abundant caution to avoid overloading of such transformers which feed the domestic light system of the village. The State Commission has rightly pointed out that initially the H.S.E.B. could not prove or establish that the sanction of the connection to the respondent could or would have amounted to overloading of this transformer. Rather it has been brought on record in paragraph 8 of the written statement of the H.S.E.B. before the State Commission that there was another commercial connection of 5 H.P. for a tube-well emanating therefrom and equally another commercial connection f or an Atta chakki from the same transformer. Therefore, the argument that it is the discretion of the Board to give or not a connection under the priority scheme, in view of these instructions, is not a valid ground and cannot be accepted as a justified reason for withdrawing a sanction issued after a period of 5 years from the date of the instructions.

AS regards the second ground namely the protest from the villagers, it is interesting to peruse the testimony of the Executive Engineer made before the State Commission, Haryana. The relevant portions of that testimony are as follows : "I do not know personally any of the signatory of this application (application of protest by the villagers). It is not mentioned in the application that the complainants (protesters) are consumers in village Nagla and the parentage of the complainants have also not been mentioned. I cannot say who has made this application..I cannot identify the signatures of the J.E. (Junior Engineer) who had made the report on 1.10.92. The alleged application by the villagers is not addressed to him. Action taken on this application was by the S.D.O. of the area concerned. I did not do the physical verification of the facts given in the application. We have not lodged any complaint or sought assistance of the Police against those who have obstructed in releasing connection to the complainant."

The alleged letter of protest by the villagers is dated 21.9.92 and the date of receipt of the instruction to cancel the connections is 27.10.93. It is, therefore, obvious that the so-called protest does not merit much consideration and is not a justified ground for cancelling the connection sanctioned to the respondent. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any justifiable ground to differ from the findings of the State Commission or to interfere with the order of the State Commission. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.