PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Shingara Singh

IT is an appeal against the order dated 20.2.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

ADMITTED facts of the case are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had applied for temporary tubewell connection which was released in accordance with the rules and after all the formalities were completed. Thereafter the complainant had applied for regularisation and again completed the formalities required under the rules. The appellant-O.Ps. (hereinafter called the O.Ps.) issued demand notice dated 2.1.2002/26.3.2002 calling upon the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant went to the office of the O.Ps. to deposit the amount but the officials of the O.Ps. showed him a Circular No. 75/2001 which disentitled the complainant for regularisation of the connection. The circular was issued in continuation of Circular No. 70/2001 and it reads as under : "The matter regarding regularisation of temporary tubewell connections released during the paddy season of year 2001 has been reviewed and it has been decided to amend Para 1 of ibid circular to read as under : Only those AP consumers who have applied on or before 31.7.2001 and have got temporary connections released on or before 31.8.2001 shall be entitled for regularisation of the tubewell connections."

The O.Ps. submitted before the District Forum that the complainant applied for temporary connection on 2.8.2001 i.e. not on or before 31.7.2001 and thus he was not entitled to regularisation of the connection. The Counsel for the complainant further submitted that after having issued the demand notice to the complainant the O.Ps. could not wriggle out of the commitment and were bound to release the tubewell connection to the complainant.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties the District Forum allowed the complaint. Relevant portion of the order of the District Forum is reproduced hereunder : "The opposite parties had not submitted that the complainant applied for temporary connection on 2.8.2001 i.e. not on or before 31.7.2001 and, thus, he is not entitled to regularisation of the connection. Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that after having once issued demand notice to the complainant, the opposite parties cannot wriggle out of the commitment and are bound to release the tubewell connection to the complainant. We feel inclined to accept that contention. The complainant submitted wiring contractor test report to the opposite parties which was accepted. He also purchased necessary equipments. The opposite parties issued demand notice dated 26.3.2002 (although it is dated 2.1.2002) calling upon the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs. 25,000/- for the regularisation of the tubewell connection. The circular in question was issued on 21.11.20001. The concerned official kept the circular under carpet. It is not open to the opposite parties to invoke the provisions of the circular at will and, particularly, after the issuing of demand notice to the complainant. By issuing demand notice, the concerned officials of the opposite parties waived the condition of the circular. Learned Counsel for the complainant has cited before us the decision of the Hon''ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bargari & Ors. v. Darshan Singh, 2002 (3) CLT 452. The ratio of that case is that once a demand notice has been issued and the complainant has completed all the formalities after issuance of demand notice, it is mandatory for the opposite party to release the tubewell connection. In the present case, the opposite party issued demand notice and the complainant is too anxious to deposit the amount mentioned in the demand notice. The opposite parties cannot now take back the demand notice and refuse to regularisation of the tube-well connection. The refusal of the opposite parties to release the tubewell connection is an act of deficiency in service."

WE have gone through the detailed order of the District Forum. WE do not find any infirmity in the same. The District Forum has passed the order after taking into consideration the record on the file as well as on the basis of the order passed in SDO, PSEB, Bargari & Ors. v. Darshan Singh, 2002 (3) CON.LT 452. The complainant had submitted wiring contractor test report to the O.Ps. which was accepted by them. He had also purchased necessary equipment. The O.Ps. had issued demand notice dated 26.3.2002 (although it is dated 2.1.2002) calling upon the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- for the regularisation of the tubewell connection. The circular in question was issued on 21.11.2001 and it was never brought to the notice of the complainant. Rather all the formalities had been completed as referred to above by the complainant on the asking of the O.Ps. If at all there was any condition laid by some later circular, the issuing of the demand notice by the concerned official of the O.Ps. had waived the conditiion of the circular, if any. The O.Ps., at a belated stage in the circumstances of the case when the complainant had completed all the main requisite formalities, could not take back the demand notice and refuse to regularise the tubewell connection. WE do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. This appeal is thus dismissed as meritless. Appeal dismissed.