UTTARI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. vs S.ATTAR SINGH

IN this revision, challenge is to the Order dated 21.6.2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the Order dated 15.5.2003 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party Nigam was directed to release electric connections for two tubewells to the respondent/complainant and pay Rs. 10,000 by way of compensation.

FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in narrow compass. To irrigate his agricultural land the respondent applied for two tubewells electric connections on 1.1.1981 and 30.7.1987 and deposited Rs. 190 and Rs. 30 on 4.1.1990 and Rs. 170 on 30.12.1990 with the petitioner. As per seniority list maintained by the petitioner, the respondent was allotted seniority Nos. 37 and 40. On issue of notice by the petitioner the respondent submitted test reports. Thereafter, SCO No. 99/6012 was issued by the petitioner. Though the petitioner erected the poles but did not release electric connections to the respondent. Alleging deficiency in service the respondent filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by filing written version by the petitioner Nigam. Receipt of two applications for providing electric connection for tubewells and non-release of connections were not disputed. However, it was alleged that in terms of Sale Circular No. 77/01 containing guidelines for issue of electric connection for tubewell, the report was required to be filed by the applicants upto 31.3.1989 and thereafter applicant to be served with registered notice to give consent and deposit Rs. 20,000 with the concerned SDO. Date of submission of test report was extended and notice bearing Memo No. 5658 dated 1.4.2002 was issued to the respondent calling upon him to deposit non-refundable amount of Rs. 20,000 with another amount of Rs. 7,000 as required under Sale Circular Nos. 77/01 and 87/01. It was alleged that respondent failed to deposit the aforesaid amounts and for that reason electric connections were not released to him. Main thrust of argument advanced by Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate, whom we have heard on admission, is that as the money demanded by the notice bearing memo No. 5658 dated 1.4.2002 issued pursuant to Sale Circular Nos. 77/01 and 87/01 was not deposited by the respondent the Fora below acted with material irregularity in passing the impugned Order. Submission is, however, without any merit. As may be seen from the Order of State Commission, SCO No. 99/6012 was issued by the petitioner after submission by the respondent of the test reports (Annexure E) on 15.3.1993 for release of tubewell connections to the respondent. It has not been explained in written version why even after issue of SCO No. 99/6012 in March, 1993 petitioner Nigam did not release connections for more than 7 years when Sale Circular Nos. 77/01 and 87/01 came to be issued whereunder fresh demand of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 7,000 was raised by issuing notice dated 1.4.2002. Particularly, in absence of any such explanation, we are not inclined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with the reasoned Order passed by the State Commission dismissing appeal against the Order of a District Forum.

Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. R.P. dismissed.