MAHIPAL LAL vs SUDAN SINGH BATOLLA

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.1.1994 passed by District Consumer Forum, Chamoli in Complaint Case No. 91/1993.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that in the complainant''s village there are 102 families. THEy have acute shortage of water on account of which in the year 1977-78 a scheme was drawn by the Khand Vikas Adhikari for drinking water. In the village of the complainant there are Harijans also. A pipe line goes through this village but at the end the water discharge is very low and the villagers faced difficulties in getting the drinking water. On 16.6.1993 the complainant No. 1 filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Gopeshwar in which villagers were not made party to the complaint. The Khand Vikas Adhikari was made a party. The Khand Vikas Adhikari did not keep all the facts before the District Forum concerned. In that case an order was passed on 3.7.1993 in which it was held that from the above said pipe line, the water shall be given to Mahipal Lal and other families of Bukhalidhar. For this village a scheme was previously drawn in the year 1983-84. There was no Stand Post on this line for the villagers in question. The complainants have prayed that the order dated 3.7.1993 passed in Complaint Case No. 61/1993 be cancelled and this complaint be allowed.

Opposite party No. 1 Mahipal Lal has alleged that a scheme was also drawn for the villagers in question. He also alleged that the complainants are the influencial persons and on account of their influence the Khand Vikas Adhikari has given an assurance for construction of a Stand Post but no Stand Post was constructed in the village of the opposite parties. There is no source of water in that village. The answering opposite party has not committed any fraud with the complainants. He has alleged that compliance of the order dated 3.7.1993 has already been done by the Khand Vikas Adhikari.

THE opposite party No. 2 has alleged that the complainant and the opposite party resides in the same village. In the year 1977-78 the Department had drawn a scheme for supply of water so that the water may be supplied to both the villagers. THE Khand Vikas Adhikari was also made a party in that case. By order dated 3.7.1993 the Stand Post has been established on 21.7.1993 and now the water is being supplied. The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions before the learned District Forum, who after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that the order passed on 3.7.1993 in Complaint Case No. 61/1993 is incorrect and it quashed the order.

AGGRIEVED against this order the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. A perusal of the file will go to show that it is not a consumer dispute. The matter which was placed before the learned District Forum was with respect to the supply of water and for establishment of Stand Post which was not constructed. These matters are beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum because there is no relationship of the consumer between the parties. The Khand Vikas Adhikari works under Statute and carries on his work according to the instructions received. Whether the Khand Vikas Adhikari has made adequate provision of water in a particular locality or not has the outlook of the department and the District Forum cannot go into such a question and could not order the Khand Vikas Adhikari for doing any work. The learned District Forum by its impugned order has set aside the order passed in Complaint Case No. 61/1993, Mahipal Lal v. Khand Vikas Adhikari. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed in complaint case. Once the matter is decided, the District Forum becomes functus officio and no jurisdiction remains with it to pass any order with respect to that case. If that judgment was wrong on any point then the aggrieved party should have filed an appeal against that judgment and the judgment could have only be set aside in the Appellate Court. Thus, we find that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is without jurisdiction and is to be set aside. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are set aside and complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal allowed.