JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. vs LILA RAM

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

VERY briefly facts of the case are that the complainant had applied for sanction of electric connection for agriculture on 12.7.1993 under general category for which he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to take benefit of 1-2 pole scheme of the petitioner Board. Yet, the connection was not given even after lapse of almost 3 years. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to sanction the connection to the complainant. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties passed the following order: " In view of the above the impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant shall give the benefit of notification dated 5.1.1996 to the respondent also at par with those in whose cases demand was raised at the relevant time and benefit of this notification was given. The case of the present respondent would be treated at par with the cases of those persons but this case would not be treated as a precedent in such matters. The appellant would raise the demand accordingly and would deliver such demand to the respondent within a period of one month from today failing which this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed."

Not satisfied, the petitioner has filed this revision petition before us.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record. The basic facts are not disputed. The petitioner has relied upon a department''s notification dated 5.1.1996. It is their case that since no demand was raised on the ground of non-feasibility, hence they cannot be directed to give the connection now, treating the complainant at par with others who had been given the connection earlier. WE have seen the notification. Admittedly, this notification is much after the application for getting connection under the then prevalent scheme. WE are unable to appreciate that some undeclared/invisible target had been achieved under the scheme and this being made a ground for not giving the connection to the complainant. The complainant has applied in 1993 and we are in the year 2005 and it is a pity that system like the Electricity Boards who float scheme, accepts money and yet do not render service who need to introspect as to what harm they are doing to their image. After hearing the parties, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission, which has sufficiently protected the interest of the petitioner by observing that this case cannot be treated as precedent in such other matters.

IN view of above, we find no merit in this revision petition, hence dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision dismissed.