PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Harminder Singh

HEARD. After hearing learned Counsel, and after going through the record and order passed by the State Commission, we are convinced that glaring deficiency in service is writ large as would be evident hereinafter. The complainant moved an application for electricity connection for tube well in 1990. Subsequently, after several years a demand notice was issued by the petitioner and in terms of the demand notice the complainant deposited the demanded amount of Rs. 15,640 on 7.6.204. But when the electric connection was not given, the complainant respondent filed complaint on 10.8.2004.

THE petitioner claims that electric connection could be given only in accordance with seniority. THE complainant is at seniority No. 436 whereas connections in his category have been released up to serial No. 86. It is evident that neither electric connection had been given nor electric connection is likely to be given in near future. These facts are not in dispute.

District Forum has passed an order dismissing the complaint.

ON appeal it was modified by the State Commission by discharging that the deposited amount of Rs. 15,640 should be refunded with interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Order in Appeal No. 339 of 2005 had been made a part of order in this appeal by the State Commission. Operative portion of that order reads as under: "Punjab State Electricity Board would refund Rs. 15,000 to the complainant along with 12% interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment and to issue demand notice again to the complainant when, in the category of applicants in which the complainant has applied, the applicant at serial No. 40 has been given the tubewell connection (as the complainant''s seniority number is 45). The seniority of an applicant would be determined from the date of registration of the application and not from the date the demand notice is issued. As a matter of abundant caution, we may observe that the refund of Rs. 15,000 as above and acceptance of the same by the complainant would not amount to cancellation of his application for tubewell connection."

The impugned order implied directed the parties to refund Rs. 15,640 in the light of the order passed in Appeal No. 339 of 2005 with cost of Rs. 1,000.

THE seniority list prepared by the petitioner is not being disturbed. THE State Commission has just directed refund of Rs. 15,640 unnecessarily detained by the petitioner along with 12% interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment and to issue demand notice again to the complainant in the category of applicants in which the complainant has applied, when the applicant would be clear to get electric connection for tube well immediately. We do appreciate that for rural electrification on such a scale funds are needed to generate electricity and to provide infrastructure and there could be financial crunch. But it arises when either promises are made or expenditure is incurred, beyond one''s capacity. But this is not the way to meet financial crunch to use agriculturist by promising to give electricity connection, collect deposits on that pretext and not to give electricity connection for tubewells. In aforementioned circumstances, we do not find any force in this petition and the revision petition is dismissed, accordingly. Revision Petition dismissed.