Kalichamy vs EX ENGINEER T N E B

THIS revision petition is filed by Mr. Kalichamy against the order dated 17th July, 2000 by the Tamil Nadu State Commission, in Appeal No. 572 of 1999. Brief facts of the case are as follows: certain small farmers from the District of Dindigul applied to the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board (TNEB) for supply of power in accordance with the scheme formulated under GOM No. 34 of 14. 2. 1995 according to which such connections were to be given on payment of Rs. 10,000 towards the cost of extension of the supply lines. All these small farmers paid Rs. 500 as the first instalment as required under the scheme and expressed their willingness to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 9,500 on demand. They had also agreed to pay for the electricity supplied at the rate of Rs. 250 per year for one horse power. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) subsequently amended the above scheme by GOM No. 159 dated 6. 11. 1995. According to this revised scheme, the farmers are to be supplied power on payment of Rs. 10,000 only in cases where the actual cost of laying the lines (cost of extension) works out to be less than Rs. 50,000. However, if the cost of extension is estimated to be above Rs. 50,000 then the scheme provides that electric connection would be given only on payment of actual cost of extension. In terms of this revised scheme, these small farmers were asked by TNEB to pay much larger amounts on the ground that the estimated cost of extension in each case works out to be above Rs. 50,000.

THE complaint filed by 42 small farmers before the District Forum, Dindigul alleging deficiency of service on the part of the TNEB was allowed by the District Forum vide its order dated 21. 12. 1998. The order of the District Forum was however reversed by the Tamil Nadu State Commission in appeal by its common order dated 17. 7. 2000 which held that there was no deficiency in service. It is against the above common order that the present revision petition has been filed. It may be noted that the Revision Petition is filed only by one of these farmers. Mr. Kalichamy whose Original Petition number is 77/1997. We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully. The facts of the case relating to this particular Revision Petition are as follows : mr. Kalichamy, the petitioner applied for an agricultural connection to TNEB which registered his name under No. 4222 dated 30. 4. 1991. He paid Rs. 500 as required under the Scheme on 29. 4. 1995 and obtained a receipt from the TNEB. His statement that he was willing to pay the remaining Rs. 9,500 on demand as required under the scheme has not been challenged and has to be accepted. The only question that arises is whether Mr. Kalichamy has got a vested right to be given power supply according to the first scheme announced vide GOM No. 34 of 14. 2. 1995 as held by the District Forum or whether he would be covered by the revised scheme under the GOM No. 159 dated 6. 11. 1995 as held by the State Commission.

The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the Madras High Court vide its order dated 10. 10. 1998 in Writ Petition Nos. 15566 to 15567/97 and 17601 to 17602/97, filed by similarly affected small farmers, held that all the petitioners had joined the scheme much prior to the amendment by GOM No. 159 dated 6. 11. 1995 and that they shall be entitled to the benefits of the earlier Scheme dated 14. 2. 1995 and the GOM No. 34. The second argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that some of the farmers having lands very close to the petitioner and who applied for electric connection under the circumstances similar to his were in fact given such connection under the first scheme of 14. 2. 1995. In his affidavit the petitioner had given two such instances of Karupahswamy (Connection No. 504) and another service connection No. 146, who were given connections under the old scheme. It is argued that the wells of both these farmers are very close to the petitioner''s well which is at a distance of 300 to 400 ft. It is, therefore, argued that the TNEB followed a policy of pick and choose, and gave some connections for reasons best known to them and did not give connections to others similarly placed. It is argued that this amounts to discrimination and that the petitioner has been singled out and it amounts to breach of agreement which he entered into with the TNEB.

THE learned State Commission focussed its attention on the definition of the word ''deficiency'' in Section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act. The State Commission took the view that the questions of (a) validity or applicability of GOs (Government orders) or (b) the discriminatory treatment meted out to the persons similarly placed coming under a particular G. O. may fall under Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court and that these questions do not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The State Commission after examining the entire scheme of supply of electricity to agriculturists by TNEB and Tamil Nadu Government came to the conclusion that TNEB has a right to formulate a scheme or to amend a scheme and to make it operational from a particular date or to limit its application to a particular number of farmers depending upon the financial resources of the State and the Board. The State Commission further came to the conclusion that deficiency as defined under the Act must mean any (a) fault : (b) imperfection; (c) shortcoming; or (d) inadequacy, in quality, nature and manner of performance in pursuance of law or a contract and that TNEB cannot be said to have caused any such deficiency as defined. The State Commission also observed that any decision rendered by the High Court based upon the theory of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel cannot be the basis of conclusion by a Consumer Forum as long as the dispute arising before that Forum is not falling within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. We have carefully considered the views of the State Commission but we are unable to accept the same. There is a clear finding of the Hon''ble High Court, Madras that all the petitioners before it had joined the scheme prior to the amendment by GOM No. 159 dated 6. 11. 1985 and that they shall be entitled to all the benefits of the earlier Scheme dated 14. 2. 1995 under GOM No. 34. The facts in the case before us are exactly the same. Therefore, there is no point in directing the Revision Petitioner to approach the High Court on the same question of law which has already been decided by the High Court. It would be a waste of time if we are to take a contrary view and ask the Revision Petitioner to file a writ petition before the High Court for the same relief granted in the High Court''s judgment dated 10. 10. 1998. In addition to this, the plea of the Revision Petitioner that he has been discriminated against compared to two other small farmers who are his close neighbours and who had been given electric connection under the old scheme whereas the same benefit has been denied to him has not been successfully met with by the opposite parties.

IN view of the above, we allow the Revision Petition and the order of the State Commission is set aside. Since the Revision Petitioner is being given substantial relief, we do not see any reason to saddle the opposite party with any compensation or costs. We, therefore, delete the portion relating to payment of compensation of Rs. 2,000 and payment of Rs. 1,000 as costs from the order of the District Forum. Subject to this modificiation, the order of the District Forum is confirmed and the opposite party is directed to provide electric connection within 30 days from the date of this order on receiving the balance amount of Rs. 9,500 from the Revision Petitioner. Revision Petition allowed.