SDO, UTTARI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. vs AJIT SINGH @ SURJIT SINGH

IN this revision against the order dated 1.4.2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula dismissing appeal against the order dated 6.12.2006 of a District Forum whereby the petitioner was directed to release tubewell connection to the respondent, the short submission advanced by Mr. N.K. Jain for petitioner was that as the complaint itself was barred by time, the order for release of tubewell connection could not have been legally passed. It was pointed out that the test report submitted by the respondent was cancelled by the petitioner on 28.2.2002 and the complaint was filed beyond two years period therefrom on 31.1.2005. It is not in dispute that respondent had applied for tubewell connection and deposited the security amount on 22.11.1992. Petitioner thereafter issued a demand notice to the respondent on 9.9.1994 and test report was thereafter submitted by the respondent. Based on Sale Circular No. 77 of 2001, the petitioner asked the respondent to deposit amount of Rs. 20,000 for release of tubewell vide letter dated 29.1.2002 and on this amount not being deposit, test report was allegedly cancelled on 28.2.2002. Said order of District Forum (copy at pages 5 to 8) would show that no evidence was filed by the petitioner which could show that the test report was cancelled on 28.2.2002 as alleged. IN absence of such an evidence, the period of limitation for filing complaint cannot be reckoned from 28.2.2002. Contention referred to above is, therefore, repelled being without any merit. To be only noted that plea of limitation was not raised before the State Commission as is evident from the aforesaid order dated 11.4.2007. Accordingly, revision is dismissed being without any substance. R.P. dismissed.