State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... vs Ram Kumar on 25 January, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) First Appeal No.645 of 2022
Date of institution : 02.08.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
1. Additional Superintending Engineer, Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited, Sub-Urban Division, Jalandhar Road,
Hoshiarpur (Punjab).
2. S.E., PSPCL, Hoshiarpur, Tanda Road, Hoshiarpur (Punjab).
....Appellants/OPs
Versus
Ram Kumar son of Tulsi Ram, resident of Village Chak Gujjran, PO
Piplanwala, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur (Punjab).
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Hoshiarpur.
2) First Appeal No.312 of 2022
Date of institution : 26.04.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala (Formerly known as
Punjab State Electricity Board).
2. The Assistant Engineer (DS), Sub Division, Punjab State Power
Corporation Ltd., Kotshamir, Tehsil & District Bathinda.
Both through Sh.Himanshu, AE (No.2).
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Jagrup Singh, son of Sh.Hazara Singh, resident of Village Gehri Devi
Nagar, Tehsil & District Bathinda.
First Appeal No.645 of 2022 2
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bathinda.
3) First Appeal No.515 of 2022
Date of institution : 15.06.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its SDO/Authorized
Person/IN-Charge, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.
........Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1. Ajaib Singh, aged about 57 years, son of Sadhu Singh, resident of
near Gurudwara Sahib, Kothe Kehar Singh Wale, Jaitu, Tehsil
Jaitu, Distt. Faridkot.
....Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through XEN, Faridkot,
District Faridkot.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
....Proforma Respondents/Opposite Parties No.2&3
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Faridkot.
4) First Appeal No.516 of 2022
Date of institution : 15.06.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
First Appeal No.645 of 2022 3
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its SDO/Authorized
Person/In-Charge, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.
........Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1. Jaskarn Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Jaggar Singh,
resident of Kothe Kehar Singh Wale, Gurusar Road, Jaitu, Tehsil
Jaitu, District Faridkot.
....Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through XEN, Faridkot,
District Faridkot.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
....Proforma Respondents/Opposite Parties No.2&3
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Faridkot.
5) First Appeal No.533 of 2022
Date of institution : 17.06.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through Sr.XEN/OP
Suburban Division, PSPCL, Barnala.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, The Mall,
Patiala, through its Chairman.
3. SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Tapa-2, Tehsil
and District Barnala.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Surjeet Ram @ Surjit Ram, aged about 52 years, son of S. Beer
Chand, resident of Village Dhaula, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
First Appeal No.645 of 2022 4
order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Barnala.
6) First Appeal No.785 of 2022
Date of institution : 12.09.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala,
through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer (DS), Sub Division, Punjab
State Power Corporation Limited, Sangat, District Bathinda.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Harmeet Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Teja Singh, son of
Hazara Singh, resident of Village Naruana, Tehsil & District Bathinda.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bathinda.
7) First Appeal No.786 of 2022
Date of institution : 12.09.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala,
through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer (DS), Sub Division, Punjab
State Power Corporation Limited, Sangat, District Bathinda.
.......Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
First Appeal No.645 of 2022 5
Manjit Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Gurcharan Singh, resident
of Village Naruana, Tehsil & District Bathinda.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bathinda.
8) First Appeal No.849 of 2022
Date of institution : 06.10.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through Executive
Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Division
Badal.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, The Mall,
Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Jaswinder Kaur, W/o Ajaib Singh, resident of Village Ghudha, District
Bathinda.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bathinda.
9) First Appeal No.1000 of 2022
Date of institution : 21.11.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through
its Secretary.
2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub-
Division Badal, District Sri Muktsar Sahib (Punjab).
First Appeal No.645 of 2022 6
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Baljinder Singh son of Maghar Singh resident of Village Nandgarh,
Tehsil and District Bathinda (Punjab).
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bathinda.
10) First Appeal No.1001 of 2022
Date of institution : 21.11.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through
its Secretary.
2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub-
Division Badal, District Sri Muktsar Sahib (Punjab).
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Tara Singh son of Narain Singh, resident of Village Nandgarh, Tehsil
and District Bathinda (Punjab).
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bathinda.
11) First Appeal No.1002 of 2022
Date of institution : 21.11.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through
its Secretary.
First Appeal No.645 of 2022 7
2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub-
Division Badal, District Sri Muktsar Sahib (Punjab).
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Gurpreet Singh, aged about 38 years, son of Gurbachan Singh,
resident of Village Nandgarh, Tehsil and District Bathinda (Punjab).
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bathinda.
12) First Appeal No.1052 of 2022
Date of institution : 06.12.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Divisional
Officer, Division Anandpur Sahib Road, Garhshankar, Tehsil
Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.
2. Assistant Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,
Sub Division Balachaur-2, Tehsil Balachaur, District Shaheed
Bhagat Singh Nagar.
3. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited, The Mall, PSEB Head Office, Baradari,
Patiala, District Patiala.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Kesh Raj, aged about 60 years, son of Ram Dhan, resident of
Kheewewal, Post Office Udhnowal, Tehsil Balachaur, District Shaheed
Bhagat Singh Nagar.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.
First Appeal No.645 of 2022 8
13) First Appeal No.1086 of 2022
Date of institution : 13.12.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its
Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
....Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1. Gurpreet Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Sukhdev Singh,
resident of Village Chandbhan, Tehsil, Jaitu, District Faridkot,
Mobile No.98721-93271.
....Respondent/Complainant
2. The Assistant Engineer, DS, Sub Division, Punjab, State Power
Corporation Limited, Jaitu.
........Proforma Respondent
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Faridkot.
14) First Appeal No.1087 of 2022
Date of institution : 13.12.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through XEN, Faridkot, District
Faridkot. (through its Authorized Official).
....Appellant/Opposite Party No.2
Versus
1. Gurpreet Singh, aged about 41 years, son of Balihar Singh,
resident near State Bank of Patiala (Now State Bank of India),
Village Chandbhan, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.
....Respondent/Complainant
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala,
through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
First Appeal No.645 of 2022 9
3. The Assistant Engineer, DS Sub Division, Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited, Jaitu.
........Proforma Respondents
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Faridkot.
15) First Appeal No.1088 of 2022
Date of institution : 13.12.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its
Chairman-cum-Managing Director (through its Authorised Official).
....Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1. Gurlal Singh, aged about 22 years, son of Swaran Singh,
resident of Village Chand Bhan, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot,
Mobile No.96532-37401.
.......Respondent/Complainant
2. The Assistant Engineer, DS Sub Division, Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited, Jaitu.
........Proforma Respondent
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Faridkot.
16) First Appeal No.1089 of 2022
Date of institution : 13.12.2022
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, (through its Authorised Official).
....Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
First Appeal No.645 of 2022 10
Versus
1. Kuldeep Singh, aged about 49 years, son of Sukhdev Singh,
resident of Village Chand Bhan, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.
....Respondent/Complainant
2. Assistant Engineer, DS, Sub Division, Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited, Jaitu.
........Proforma Respondent
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Faridkot.
17) First Appeal No.440 of 2023
Date of institution : 14.06.2023
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall Patiala,
through its Chairman/Managing Director.
2. Asstt. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation
Limited, Sangat, Distt. Bathinda.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Mandeep Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Gursewak Singh,
resident of Village Gehri Buttar, Tehsil & District Bathinda.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bathinda.
18) First Appeal No.441 of 2023
Date of institution : 15.06.2023
Reserved On : 21.11.2023
Date of decision : 25.01.2024
First Appeal No.645 of 2022 11
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala,
through its Chairman/Managing Director.
2. Asstt. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation
Limited, Sangat, Distt. Bathinda.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Veer Singh, aged about 67 years, son of Kartar Singh, resident of
Village Gehri Buttar, Tehsil & District Bathinda.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present(FA No.645 of 2022):-
For the Appellants : Dr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Sh. Ram Kumar, in person.
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
By this judgment of ours, total 18 Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.645 of 2022, First Appeal No.312 of 2022, First Appeal No.515 of 2022, First Appeal No.516 of 2022, First Appeal No.533 of 2022, First Appeal No.785 of 2022, First Appeal No.786 of 2022, First Appeal No.849 of 2022, First Appeal No.1000 of 2022, First Appeal First Appeal No.645 of 2022 12 No.1001 of 2022, First Appeal No.1002 of 2022, First Appeal No.1052 of 2022, First Appeal No.1086 of 2022, First Appeal No.1087 of 2022, First Appeal No.1088 of 2022, First Appeal No.1089 of 2022, First Appeal No.440 of 2023 and First Appeal No.441 of 2023 shall be disposed off, as similar questions of law and facts are involved therein and the same have been filed by the Appellants/OPs against the similar orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.645 of 2022. First Appeal No.645 of 2022
2. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/OPs under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshiarpur (in short, "the District Commission").
3. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.
4. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent/Complainant in the Complaint filed by him before the District Commission are that his wife Smt. Kulwant Kaur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Applicant') had applied for release of a 'Drip/Sprinkling Micro Electric Tubewell Connection' (hereinafter to be First Appeal No.645 of 2022 13 referred as 'tubewell connection') under the 'Agriculture Pumping Supply' (AP) category with the OPs on 08.08.2016. An amount of ₹5,100/- was deposited against proper receipt of even date (Ex.C-1). Said connection was applied under the 'Scheduled Caste' quota and all the necessary formalities were completed by the Complainant. Said connection was due in the month of August, 2016, as there was no restriction on the connections at that time. Further it was mentioned that after the change of the Government in the State of Punjab in the year 2017, the 'Chairman Quota' scheme was launched and earlier schemes and quotas were kept on hold/superseded. It was further mentioned that the Appellants did not issue the Demand Notice to the Applicant and information regarding this fact was obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). It was further mentioned that certain connections, which were applied during the period w.e.f. July, 2016 to December, 2016 were released but the Applicant was deprived of said tubewell connection. Certain written Complaints were made to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur as well as to the SSP, Hoshiarpur but no result.
5. Upon issuing notices to the OPs, they appeared before the District Commission and filed their reply, wherein certain preliminary objections were raised, like the Complaint was not maintainable at the instance of the Complainant and he was not having any locus standi to file the Complaint. There was no 'deficiency in service' on the part of First Appeal No.645 of 2022 14 the OPs. Other averments made in the Complaint were replied/denied and it was mentioned that the same were not correct. It was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.
6. By considering the contents of the Complaint and reply thereof filed by the OPs, the Complaint was allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 21.06.2022 by directing the Appellants/OPs to issue the Demand Notice to the wife of the Complainant and to release tubewell connection as soon as possible on completion of required formalities. The Complainant was also awarded compensation of ₹25,000/- to be paid by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which said amount was to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till its realization.
7. Said order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the Appellants/OPs by way of filing the present Appeal by raising a number of arguments.
8. Dr. Sukant Gupta, learned Counsel for the Appellants/OPs has vehemently argued that the Respondent/Complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' as defined under Section 2 (7) of the Act, as he was neither the Applicant of the tubewell connection before the OPs nor he was aggrieved in not releasing the said connection. He had no locus standi to file the Complaint, as the tubewell connection was applied by First Appeal No.645 of 2022 15 his wife. The Complainant had not placed on record any authorization or Power of Attorney to file the Complaint and as such he was not entitled to file the Complaint before the District Commission. The Complaint was liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
9. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Complaint was bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties, as the Complainant had not impleaded the Sub-Division, Sham Chaurasi, Division Sub Urban, PSPCL, Hoshiarpur, as party where the Application for tubewell connection was made by his wife. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the District Commission was misled, as correct facts of the case were not brought to its notice and the Complainant has obtained a favourable order on the basis of misrepresentation of facts. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the Complainant had twisted the facts that his wife had moved an Application for release of 'Drip/Sprinkling Micro Electric Tubewell Connection' under the 'Scheduled Caste category', which is not correct as the said Application was not submitted under said category. No evidence was led/produced before the District Commission by the Complainant to prove this fact. The Application Form is annexed with the Appeal as Annexure A-1. Said document could not be produced in evidence before the District Commission, as Sub Division Sham Chaurasi, PSPCL was not directly impleaded as necessary party in the Complaint. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the First Appeal No.645 of 2022 16 Complainant had placed reliance on the letters dated 10.05.2018, 25.05.2018 and June, 2018 (Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5), which are communications inter-se the PSPCL pertaining to SC category to show that his wife had applied for the tubewell connection under the SC category. The Complainant has suppressed certain material facts and as such he is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, due to which the Complaint should have been dismissed outrightly. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the District Commission has lost sight of a material fact that there was no SC quota for release of said tubewell connection and the same is not relevant in the present case and particularly when the Application of the Applicant was not filed under the said category, as is evident from document Annexure A-1. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the District Commission had misread and misinterpreted the information supplied to the Complainant under the RTI Act. The information so supplied under the RTI Act pertained to 4 Sub Divisions in Sub Urban Division of Hoshiarpur including Sham Chaurasi, Sub Urban, Rehana Jattan and Manian Khurd. Said Sub Divisions had separately supplied the information under the RTI Act regarding the release of tubewell connections in the category in dispute. The District Commission had wrongly relied upon the information supplied by Sub Urban Sub Division, Hoshiarpur (Ex.C-2), as total 5 connections were released under the 'Drip/Sprinkling Micro Electric Tubewell Connection' First Appeal No.645 of 2022 17 category during the period starting from July, 2017 to December, 2017. Learned Counsel has further submitted that Sub Division Sham Chaurasi had not released even a single connection under the said category during said period since the year 2016 and the Application submitted by the Applicant is still pending. The District Commission has also erred while issuing the directions to release the connection to the Applicant. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the wife of the Complainant was not entitled for said benefit, as she had applied for said connection under the 'Drip/Sprinkling Micro Electric Tubewell Connection' category and she was not falling under the Chairman Discretionary (CMD) quota or even in 2.5 acre category. The Model Code of Conduct was imposed in the State of Punjab on 04.01.2017 due to elections and instructions were also issued in this regard not to release any new connection except in those cases, where total cost of material had been deposited before 11.01.2017. The Applicant had not been issued the Demand Notice till that date of imposition of the Model Code of Conduct and her file was returned to the concerned Sub Division. Learned Counsel has further submitted that a letter was also issued by the Additional Superintending Engineer, PSPCL, Hoshiarpur stating that only the connections under CMD quota were to be released over and above any other quota. Since the said letter was in force and as such no clarification or instructions to the contrary were issued till date, directing the release of connection in any other First Appeal No.645 of 2022 18 category. Learned Counsel has further submitted that as per letter dated 13.04.2018 issued by the office of Engineer-in-Chief (Commercial), PSPCL, Patiala, no new/fresh Demand Notices against General Category and also any priority category AP Applicants were to be issued, except Freedom Fighters till further orders. At the end, learned Counsel has submitted that the order passed by the District Commission is not only contrary to the facts and law but also to the instructions issued by the PSPCL from time to time. All these facts and circumstances had not been taken into consideration by the District Commission while passing the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
i) UHBVN Ltd. v. Bhagwan Singh 2015 (2) CPJ 699 (NC);
ii) PSPCL v. Surjit Singh FA No.451 of 2021 decided on 20.10.2022.
10. Mr. Ram Singh, Respondent/Complainant while appearing in person has submitted that there is no force in the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the Appellants, as a detailed order was passed by the District Commission by properly appreciating the version and evidence of both the parties available on the record in detail. He has further submitted the tubewell connection was not released to the Applicant intentionally and by adopting pick and choose method, certain tubewell connections were released by the OPs under same category in other Sub Divisions of the same District First Appeal No.645 of 2022 19 Hoshiarpur. The connection was applied under SC category and the cutoff date was 12.04.2018 as per Investigation Report of Chief Engineer (Technical) PSPCL/Audit Inspection, Head Office, Patiala. Even the responsibility was also fixed upon the Additional S.E. AND HDM, PSPCL as mentioned in the Investigation Report. The case was passed by the Soil Conservation Department and thereafter the Drip Sprinkler System (DSS) was set up and the subsidy was provided by the State Government. However, due to non-release of the tubewell connection, said sprinkler system had been damaged after expiry of the period of 7 and ¾ months. All the documents are lying in the office of Sub Division, Sham Chaurasi and as per Circular No.54/2016 dated 23.11.2016, the tubewell connections were to be released to the members of the SC category. The cut-off date was extended from 30.11.2015 to 01.01.2016 to release 'Micro Drip Sprinkler AP Connections'. However, the Applicant was deprived of the tubewell connection without any reason and the Complainant had suffered mental tension and harassment during this period due to inaction on the part of the OPs. The Appeal is liable to be dismissed. The Complainant has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
i) Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.
& Ors. CWP-27028 of 2018 decided on 28.03.2019 (Punjab & Haryana High Court);
First Appeal No.645 of 2022 20
ii) Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.
& Ors. RA-CW-413-2019 decided on 09.12.2019(Punjab & Haryana High Court);
iii) Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Jarnail Singh SOP (c) Nos.6657/2020 decided on 15.06.2020 (SC);
iv) Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Gurmeet Singh FA No.294 of 2021 decided on 28.04.2022 (Punjab State Consumer Commission); and
v) PSPCL, Division Badal, District Sri Muktsar Sahib v. Baltej Singh FA No.555 of 2018 decided on 08.10.2018 (Punjab State Consumer Commission).
11. Mr. Ashish Grover, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant in F.A. No.312 of 2022 and others has reiterated the arguments raised by the Respondent/Complainant in F.A. No.545 of 2022. In addition, he has also argued that the objection raised by the OPs regarding limitation is not tenable and convincing, as neither the connection was released nor the amount deposited by the Complainant was refunded and as such it was a continuing cause of action. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the issued involved in these appeals had already been decided by the Principal Bench of this Commission in FA No.618 of 2023 (Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Amandeep Singh) vide order dated 12.10.2023. Similar issue was also decided by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jarnail Singh's (supra), wherein Respondents/PSPCL were directed to release the tubewell connections to the petitioners after completion of necessary formalities. Said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court has been upheld First Appeal No.645 of 2022 21 up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Commission had also decided the identical issued in FA No.555 of 2018 (PSPCL & Anr. v. Baltej Singh) vide order dated 08.10.2018. The order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the Additional Bench of this Commission in F.A. No.451 of 2021 (PSPCL v. Surjit Singh) as relied upon by the Appellants is not applicable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Jarnail Singh's (supra), which has been upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned Counsel has further submitted that after issuance of the Circular dated 19.04.2017, the Appellants had framed a revised policy dated 13.04.2018, whereby the tubewell connections were to be issued only to the 'Freedom Fighters' under the 'CMD Discretionary Quota', whereas the Complainant had applied for the connection under the 'Chairman Discretionary Quota' on priority basis as per the procedure prescribed by the Appellants/OPs. Said connections were duly approved by the OPs and thereafter the security amount was also received from the eligible Applicants as per the sanctioned load. Further it has been submitted that the claim of Complainant(s) was based on earlier policy dated 16.12.2015 issued by the PSPCL and as such the Complainants were not supposed/expected to challenge the revised policy dated 13.04.2018 in the Complaints, as it cannot be made applicable retrospectively but the same would have prospective effect and the appeals are also liable to be dismissed.
First Appeal No.645 of 2022 22
12. We have heard the arguments raised from both the sides. We have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission and all other documents available on the file.
13. Facts regarding filing of the Complaint by the Complainant before the District Commission, reply thereto filed by the OPs, allowing of said Complaint and thereafter filing of the present Appeal by the Appellants/OPs before this Commission are not in dispute.
14. The Appellants/OPs have raised an objection that the Complainant had no locus standi to file the Complaint as the tubewell connection was applied by his wife and as such the Complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer'.
15. The definition of 'consumer' as provided under Section 2 (7) of the Act is relevant in the present context, which is reproduced as under:
"(7) "consumer" means any person who--
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose."First Appeal No.645 of 2022 23
16. On perusal of definition of 'Consumer' as reproduced above, it is apparent that the Complaint filed by the Complainant, being the beneficiary of the services availed by his wife, was maintainable before the District Commission. Even otherwise also, all the correspondence was done by the Complainant himself being the husband of the Applicant with the OPs under his name. Similar issue was there before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. v. Harjot Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia & Anr. Civil Appeal No.7858 of 1997 decided on 25.03.1998. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under:
"Before we examine the aforesaid questions, it would be appropriate to notice the scenario in which the parliament enacted the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The United Nations had passed a resolution in April, 1985 indicating certain guidelines under which the Government could make law for better protection of the interest of the consumers. Such laws were necessary more in the developing countries to protect the consumers from hazards to their health and safety and make them available speedier and cheaper redress. Consumerism has been a movement in which the trader and the consumer find each other as adversaries. Till last two decades in many developed and developing countries powerful consumer organisations have come into existence and such organisations have instrumental in dealing with the consumer protection laws and in expansion of the horizon of such laws. In our country the legislation is of recent origin and its efficacy has not been critically evaluated which has to be done on the basis of experience. Undoubtedly the Act creates a framework for speedy disposal of consumer disputes and an attempt has been made to remove the existing evils of the ordinary court system. The Act gives a comprehensive definition of consumer who is the principal beneficiary of the legislation but at the same time in view of the comprehensive definition of the term 'consumer' even a member of the family cannot be denied the status of consumer under the Act and in an action by any such member of the family for any deficiency of service, it will not be open for a trader to take a stand that there is no privity of contract. The Consumer Protection Act confers jurisdiction on the Commission in respect of matters where either there is defect in goods or there is deficiency in First Appeal No.645 of 2022 24 service or there has been an unfair and restrictive trade practice or in the matter of charging of excessive price. The Act being a beneficial legislation intended to confer some speedier remedy on a consumer from being exploited by unscrupulous traders, the provisions thereof should receive a liberal construction."
17. In view of the ratio of aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the fact that all the correspondence was done by the Complainant with the OPs and as such he falls under the definition of 'consumer' being beneficiary of the services availed by his wife.
18. Now coming to the merits in the case, admittedly Smt. Kulwant Kaur had applied for release of Drip/Sprinkling Micro Electric Tubewell Connection' ('tubewell connection') under 'Agriculture Pumping Supply' (AP) category with the OPs on 08.08.2016 and an amount of ₹5,100/- was also deposited vide receipt dated 08.08.2016 (Ex.C-1). All the necessary formalities were completed by the wife of the Complainant.
19. It is necessary to put light on the 'Drip/Sprinkling Micro System'. Under this system, the water is sprayed though Micro- Sprinklers over the agriculture fields, lawns, gardens etc., which is common in both urban and rural areas. The Sprinklers not only spray water evenly but also help in conserving the valuable natural resources. The sprinklers shower water into the air through nozzles, which subsequently break into droplets and fall on crop canopy as well as the field surface. The water is supplied to plants roots directly through plastic pipes, lateral tubes, valves and emitters. Micro- First Appeal No.645 of 2022 25 irrigation system is effective not only in saving water but by increasing water use efficiency as compared to the conventional surface irrigation method. It also helps to reduce water consumption, growth of unwanted plants (weeds), soil erosion and cost of cultivation. Micro- irrigation can be adopted in all kinds of land, especially where it is not possible to effectively use flooding method for irrigation. In flooding method of irrigation, a field is flooded with water, which results in significant run-off, anaerobic conditions in the soil and around the root zone and deep irrigation below the root zone, which does not supply sufficient water to the plants. It is one of the most inefficient surface irrigation methods. Micro-irrigation is also useful in undulating terrain, rolling topography, hilly areas, barren land and areas having shallow soils. The main features of Micro-irrigation system are reproduced as under:
• Water is applied via pressurized piping system. Micro-irrigation requires pumps for developing the required pressure for delivering water through pipelines, regardless of whether the source of water is surface or underground.
• Water is applied drop-by-drop for a long period in case of drip irrigation system.
• Water is applied at a low rate to maintain the optimum air-water balance within the root zone.
• Water is applied at frequent intervals as per the requirement of plants.
• Water is supplied directly to the plants and not to the other areas of the field, thus, reducing wastage.
• Soil moisture content is always maintained at 'field capacity' of the soil. Hence, crops grow at a faster rate, consistently and uniformly.First Appeal No.645 of 2022 26
20. The main objects of Micro-Irrigation are as under:
i) Increase the area under micro irrigation technologies to enhance water use efficiency in irrigation sector.
ii) Increase productivity of crops and income of farmers through precision water management.
ii) Promote micro irrigation technologies in water intensive/consuming crops like sugarcane, banana, cotton etc. and give adequate focus to extend coverage of field crops under micro irrigation technologies.
iv) Make potential use of micro irrigation systems for promoting fertigation and chemigation.
v) Promote micro irrigation technologies in water scarce, water stressed and critical ground water blocks/districts.
vi) Link tube-well / river-lift irrigation projects with micro irrigation technologies for best use of energy both for lifting and pressurized irrigation as far as possible.
vii) Promote, develop and disseminate micro irrigation technology for agriculture and horticulture development with modern scientific knowledge.
21. The Micro-irrigation system has also a number of more advantages/merits over surface irrigation system. Some of the advantages of Micro-irrigation system are reproduced as under.
i) Helps in saving water:
Water requirement in drip or sprinkler irrigation is much less as compared to any other conventional method of irrigation. This is because of irrigation of a smaller portion of land, decreased evaporation from the soil surface and reduction or elimination of run-offs. Waterlogging, which occurs under flat surface flood irrigation, is rare in case of microirrigation. Since microirrigation system allows high level of water control application, water can be applied only when needed and losses due to deep percolation can be minimised or avoided. Microirrigation can reduce water usage by 25-40 per cent as compared to overhead systems and 45-60 per cent as compared to surface irrigation.
ii) Uniform water application:
Micro-irrigation systems ensure uniform water application. Therefore, all plants in a field receive equal amount of water. First Appeal No.645 of 2022 27 Higher uniformity results in efficient irrigation, thereby, causing less wastage of water, power and fertilisers. Consistent water application results in better and uniform crop yields as each plant is given the required amount of water and nutrients for optimum growth. Crop yield is the measurement of the amount of agricultural production harvested per unit area.
iii) Helps in saving electricity:
Microirrigation systems require less electricity as compared to other systems. Usually, delivery pipe in microirrigation systems operate at low pressure (2-4 bar). Therefore, these require less energy for pumping.
iv) Improves chemical application:
Microirrigation system can apply chemicals to plants through fertigation unit. 'Fertigation' is the application of fertilisers used for making soil amendments in order to improve plant growth. Since the fertilisers are applied directly to the root zones of the plants, a reduction in the total amount of fertiliser applied is possible, which saves an average of 25-50 per cent of the total cost. Microirrigation systems apply the right fertiliser to the plants at a given time. Herbicides, insecticides and fungicides can also be applied through microirrigation systems, and thereby, help improve the crop yield.
v) Reduces weeds and diseases:
Weeds are the unwanted plants that grow in lawns, gardens and agricultural fields. They compete with the crops for nutrients, moisture and sunlight, which can reduce the crop quality and the yield. These also serve as a habitat for diseases and insect-pests, which attack the main crop. Weed growth is inhibited in areas irrigated by drip irrigation as only a limited area gets irrigated. Hence, the threat of weeds and diseases is reduced.
vi) Improves tolerance of crops to soil salinity:
Micro-irrigation reduces the sensitivity of most crops to saline water or soil-water conditions due to high moisture content in the root zones of plants. Micro-irrigation (especially, drip irrigation) keeps the soil moisture continuously at a high level near the root zone, and thus, maintains a low level of salt concentration. Therefore, crops under micro-irrigation system are more tolerant to saline water.
vii) Suitable to various topography and soil type:
Micro-irrigation systems can function efficiently on any topography, if appropriately designed and managed. Low water application rate with micro-irrigation systems is ideal for clayey First Appeal No.645 of 2022 28 soil as water can be applied slowly enough for the soil to absorb without any surface run-off.
viii) Regulates water through automation:
Micro-irrigation system can be semi or fully automatic. It uses automatic controller, which can be simple mechanical clocks or timers that open or close the valve on a pre-set time schedule. These can be programmed to run at night when evaporation is low. A micro-irrigation system can be easily automated using electrical solenoid valves and a controller. This allows the system to operate at any time of the day and for any duration.
ix) Reduces labour costs:
One of the major advantages of micro-irrigation system is that it reduces labour costs. Labour requirement is reduced as it is an automated system and does not require labourers to irrigate an area. A large area of land can be irrigated at once with micro- irrigation system.
x) Improves quality and yield:
Crop quality and yield is improved under micro-irrigation system because of slow, regular and uniform application of water and nutrients. Besides, damages and losses due to the contact of water with fruits or foliages are practically eliminated.
22. In India, more than 80% of the available water is used for irrigation. Irrigation is the controlled application of water through man- made systems to meet out the water requirements of the agriculture. Irrigation is an artificial application of water to crops or plants, especially when an agricultural field does not get sufficient water through rains. India faces acute water scarcity. Therefore, the irrigation methods, which can help in not only in saving freshwater but also to provide sufficient water to agriculture fields/plants are required to be adopted. The water under the earth is a natural source. The 'Micro- irrigation' is a unique method being adopted in our country by the farmers to make use of the water at the appropriate place/land. It shall First Appeal No.645 of 2022 29 be encouraged by the State Governments. It will not only help in saving the water but also in conserving the valuable natural resources.
23. Being inspired by all the features and advantages of Drip/Sprinkler/Micro-irrigation System, the Applicant had applied for tubewell connection on 08.08.2016 under 'Scheduled Caste' quota and the cut-off date was 12.04.2018 as per the Investigation Report of PSPCL. The Investigation Report was approved by the Board of Directors, PSPCL, Head Office, Patiala and thereafter it was approved by the CMD, PSPCL. No objection regarding submission of Application under SC quota was raised earlier by the OPs either in the correspondence or in the reply to the Complaint. It was denied only in the reply that the Sprinkler Micro Scheme was only for Scheduled Caste quota. Hence, said plea cannot be accepted and moreover, it has been raised at a later stage of Appeal.
24. The matter was also approved by the Soil Conservation Department and even the subsidy of Drip Micro Sprinkler System was provided by the State Government. Said system was set up by the authorized Company and all the documents/photographs of Sprinkler System were also submitted to Sham Chaurasi, PSPCL Sub Division under Additional S.E. Sub Urban Division, Hoshiarpur at the time of depositing the security. All the record was lying in Sub Division Sham Chaurasi under ASE Sub Division, Hoshiarpur.
First Appeal No.645 of 2022 30
25. It is relevant to mention that letter bearing Memo No.7786/90/SSM-414/AP Policy-16-17 dated 23.11.2016 (Ex.C-9) was issued by Dy. CE/Sales-1 to All Engineer-in-Chief/Chief Engineer (DS), PSPCL in continuation of the Commercial Circular No.22/2016 dated 22.07.2016 and CC-44/2015. The cut-off date for release of tubewell connections under the priority categories was enhanced from 30.11.2015 to 01.11.2016. In the said letter, priority category for issuing the tubewell connections was available to the members of the 'Scheduled Caste' as mentioned at Sr. No.V. A direction was issued to regulate the issuance of Demand Notices by the Sub Divisions under their control and to release the connections within the stipulated period as per Regulation 8 of the Supply Code from the date of compliance of the Demand Notice by the prospective consumer. The Applicant had already applied for the tubewell connection on 08.08.2016 but no steps were taken by the OPs for issuance of Demand Notices to release the tubewell connection. The Complainant had obtained the information under the RTI Act from the OPs vide letter dated 13.10.2017 (Ex.C-2). On perusal on said letter, it is clear that 5 tubewell connections were released under Micro Sprinkler System but the case of the Applicant was not considered for the reasons best known to the OPs.
26. It is also relevant to mention that as per Circular issued by the Head Office, Patiala vide Memo No.7786/90/SSM-414/AP Policy 2016-17, the tubewell connections were to be released to the First Appeal No.645 of 2022 31 members of Scheduled Caste on priority basis and cut-off date was also extended from 30.11.2015 to 01.11.2016. As per the Investigation Report of Head Office Patiala, it had been revealed that as per Circulars dated 16.12.2015, 22.07.2016 as well as 23.11.2016, the Demand Notices were issued to upto date Applicants for release of 'AP Drip Micro Sprinkler Connections'. The cut-off date was 12.04.2018.
27. It has also been brought on record by the Complainant that it has been wrongly mentioned in the affidavit of the OPs that no connection was released after 08.08.2016 but subsequently in the affidavit dated 10.03.2023, it has been mentioned that out of 11 tubewell connections, 8 tubewell connection had been released during the period from 22.09.2016 to 04.07.2017 from Sub Division Sham Chaurasi and the wife of the Complainant was also claiming the tubewell connection from said Sub Division. The Appellants are changing their statements in different documents/affidavits. It has also been brought to our notice that two persons namely Hitpal Singh and Massa Singh were senior to Kulwant Kaur (wife of the Complainant) and her name was at Sr. No.3 and there was no other senior to Kulwant Kaur at Sub Division, Sham Chaurasi under Sub Urban Division, Hoshiarpur. As per the Investigation Report of PSPCL, the Applicant, who was at Sr. No.1-Hitpal Singh was deprived of his tubewell connection intentionally. The objection raised First Appeal No.645 of 2022 32 by the OPs had already been removed by said Sh. Hitpal Singh but no connections were released to Hitpal Singh and Massa Singh. A notice was sent to Applicant at Sr. No.2-Massa Singh to remove the objections, but there was no compliance to the said notice and his Application for release of tubewell connection was converted into General Category. An inquiry was conducted by the PSPCL, from which it is apparent that there was no person senior to Kulwant Kaur in Sub Division Sham Chaurasi under Sub Urban Division, Hoshiarpur. The Inquiry Report dated 31.12.2019 was received after the expiry of the period of 3 years and that too after filing of Appeal to CMD, PSPCL during the pendency of the Appeal.
28. The stand of the Complainant is also that in the Inquiry Report, certain material facts were suppressed in the Inquiry Report. There were 3 columns in the Application i.e. (i) connection released till 08.08.2016, (ii) connection released after 08.08.2016 and (iii) connections released till date. The date and year were not mentioned in the chart given by the OPs. However, the 'Drip Micro Sprinkler Tubewell Connections' were released in almost all the Sub Divisions of PSPCL Circle Hoshiarpur after the submission of the Application by the Applicant. This fact had been concealed by the OPs in the affidavits filed in the Appeal. It has not been brought on record as to what action had been taken against the erring officers/officials after the submission of the Inquiry Report. It has also been proved on record First Appeal No.645 of 2022 33 from the Investigation Report that the tubewell connection could have been released to Kulwant Kaur, the wife of the Complainant but the same was not released to her intentionally with malafide intention. It was found in the Inquiry Report dated 31.12.2019 that in case the Takhmeena (estimate/valuation) was sent after approval to the Sub Division Office, the Applicant could have been issued the Demand Notice and the tubewell connection could have been released to her. Chief Naksha Navis Engineer Yashpal was responsible for not getting the estimate/valuation (Takhmeena) well in time and for causing the delay in release of the tubewell connection to the Applicant. In another Inquiry Report dated 27.11.2020, it was concluded that Engineer Harminder Singh was also responsible for not processing the Application of the Applicant, as the Takhmeena was not sent to the Sub Division office well in time after approval.
29. It has also been observed in the Enquiry Report that had the inquiry report been submitted well in time, the Demand Notice could have been issued and the connection could have been released to Kulwant Kaur but due to the delay on the part of Chief Naksha Navis Engineer Yashpal and Engineer Harminder Singh, the Application submitted by the Applicant was not processed and the Demand Notice could not be issued to the Complainant.
30. The OPs had taken a stand that the Model Code of Conduct was imposed in the State on 04.01.2017 due to elections and First Appeal No.645 of 2022 34 no new Demand Notice was issued during said period. However, the Model Code of Conduct was imposed for a specific period and after the removal of the Code of Conduct, there were no restrictions in releasing the tubewell connection to the Applicant. However, after the expiry of the Model Code of Conduct, certain connections were also released by the OPs to some other Applicants. In Attowal Sub Division, the tubewell connection under same category was also released to some other Applicant on 28.10.2016, which was applied on 05.05.2016. Another connection was also released on 10.07.2017 in view of the Application dated 01.06.2016 under Sub Urban Sub Division, Hoshiarpur and one more connection was also released 04.07.2017 under the same Sub Division, Sham Chaurasi, where the wife of the Applicant had applied. Therefore, the stand of the OPs that no connection was released in Sham Chaurasi Sub Division is patently wrong. There was no delay of any type on the part of the Applicant but still the tubewell connection was not released to the Applicant and the delay was there on the part of officers/officials of the PSPCL itself as it is apparent from the Inquiry Reports brought on record. It is not the stand of the OPs that the Applicant Kulwant Kaur was not eligible for the connection but the admission of the OPs in this regard has been proved from aforesaid documents that the case of the Applicant was not processed/put up by the concerned officers/officials without any reasons and for the reasons best known to them.
First Appeal No.645 of 2022 35
31. It is also relevant to mention that the Dy. Chief Engineer (Commerce), PSPCL, Patiala had issued letter No.137- 141/Clarification dated 20.04.2021 to all the Chief Engineers, PSPCL, wherein it was mentioned that the eligible Applicants were not issued the tubewell connections due to the negligence of the Field Officers. The Applicants had raised voice against the inaction and negligence of the Field Officers. A direction was also issued to examine the matter thoroughly and the tubewell connections be issued to the eligible Applicants. From said letter also, the inaction and negligence on the part of the officers/officials of the OPs has been fully proved on record.
32. Further, the Dy. Chief Engineer/Sales-I, PSPCL, Patiala had also sent a letter No.186/ASE/S-II/Loose dated 16.08.2023 to Dy. Chief Engineer/DS, PSPCL, Hoshiarpur, wherein a reference was also made to Regulations No.5.3 of the Electricity Supply Code as notified by the Punjab State Regulatory Commission as well as the Model Code of Conduct imposed on 04.01.2017. It was mentioned therein that presently the new policy was under consideration and as soon as the new policy would be notified, the AP connections would be issued accordingly. Said letter is contrary to the findings recorded in the Inquiry Report as mentioned above. However, this letter is also not sufficient/enough to exonerate the OPs from releasing the tubewell connection to the wife of the Complainant, who had applied much earlier on 08.08.2016. Moreover, the carelessness, inaction and First Appeal No.645 of 2022 36 negligence of the officers/officials of the OPs has been clearly proved on record from the Inquiry Reports as mentioned above.
33. Similar issue was there before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.27028/2018 (Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors.), which was decided vide judgment dated 28.03.2019. In that case, the petitioners had applied for tubewell connections in the year 2016 as per the procedure prescribed by the Respondents. The tubewell connections were approved and sanctioned by the competent authority vide separate sanction letters. The petitioners had also deposited the requisite amount, as demanded by the Respondents. Those petitioners were having grievances that instead of completion of formalities, the tubewell connections were not released to them, whereas the connections were released to other similarly situated persons of other villages by adopting pick and choose policy. After deposit of the process fee by the petitioners, the Model Code of Conduct was imposed by the Election Commission on 04.01.2017 and as such the connections could not be released. The connections were issued even to those persons, to whom the Demand Notices were issued before imposition of the Code of Conduct on 04.01.2017. The Hon'ble High Court had observed that undisputedly the Applications were moved for grant of tubewell connections under the 'Chairman's Discretionary Quota', which were approved by the competent authority First Appeal No.645 of 2022 37 well before the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct. The requisite fee had also been deposited by all the petitioners. Further it was observed that once the discretion had been exercised by the competent authority in favour of the petitioners, the denial of benefit on the ground of implementation of the Model Code of Conduct was arbitrary. Further it was held that the Respondents could have released the connections immediately after the elections were held but admittedly the same were not released, whereas the connections were released to the similarly situated persons during and after the Model Code of Conduct.
By considering the reasons and facts, the Hon'ble High Court had allowed the Writ Petition vide judgment dated 28.03.2019 and the Respondents were directed to release the tubewell connections to the petitioners on completion of necessary formalities within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
34. The Respondents being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Single Bench had filed LPA No.1508 of 2019 before the Hon'ble High Court, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.09.2019 with liberty to file appropriate Application before the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the Respondents had filed Review Application i.e. RA-CW-413 of 2019, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 09.12.2019. First Appeal No.645 of 2022 38 Thereafter, fresh LPA No.153 of 2020 was filed by the Respondents, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 30.01.2020. The matter did not end there and the Respondents had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing SLP No.6657 of 2020, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.06.2020. The COCP No.2710 of 2020 was filed by the petitioners before the Hon'ble High Court and only thereafter the Respondents had released the tubewell connections to the petitioners in that case and the COCP was also disposed off vide order dated 06.09.2022.
35. In another case i.e. FA No.618 of 2023 (Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Amandeep Singh) decided by this Commission vide order dated 12.10.2023, similar issue had arisen. In the said case also, the tubewell connection was not released on the ground of imposition of Model Code of Conduct. The Appeal filed by PSPCL was dismissed along with bunch of similar cases and the impugned orders passed by the District Commission were upheld. Another Appeal i.e. FA No.555 of 2018 (PSPCL & Anr. v. Baltej Singh) was also dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 08.10.2018 under similar set of circumstances.
36. The appellants have further relied upon the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the Additional Bench of this Commission in F.A. No.451 of 2021 (PSPCL v. Surjit Singh). However, the same was not applicable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the First Appeal No.645 of 2022 39 case of Jarnail Singh's (supra), which had been upheld up the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
37. In view of the facts and reasons and also the circumstances as mentioned above as well as the judgments cited above, it is apparent that unnecessary delay had been caused by the OPs in not releasing the tubewell connection to the Applicant. It not only a case of non-application of mind but also a motivated action on the part of the OPs. The highhandedness of the officers/officials of the OPs is writ large in the present case. The inaction of the officers/officials of the OPs is not only intentional and malafide but for the reasons best known to them. The Complainant was in dire need of the tubewell connection but he had been deprived of the same by the OPs with ulterior motive even when the similarly situated persons had already been granted the benefit under the scheme.
38. Not only the Applicant/Complainant had been harassed and humiliated but had also been deprived of their right and inordinate delay has been caused. Due to non-release of the tubewell connection, she had faced hardships and financial loss of crop for a period of about 7 years due to delay on the part of the OPs. Moreover, the Applicant is marginal farmer belonging to reserved category and the connection was not released to her without any ground of justification. Rather, the purpose of the policy has been frustrated under such like circumstances and that too when other similarly First Appeal No.645 of 2022 40 situated persons had been given the benefit of the scheme. Time and again it has been emphasized that no junior to the Applicant has been granted the benefit under the scheme, whereas the connections were granted by adopting the pick and choose policy by twisting the facts and the same is contrary to the outcome of the inquiry as well as the principal of natural justice.
39. The District Commission had also specifically observed that one connection was applied under Micro Sprinkler Scheme during the period from July, 2017 to December, 2017 and total 5 connections were released including one connection, which was applied within the said period. The Applicant had applied for the connection and had paid the security amount of ₹51,00/- on 08.08.2016 and earlier to that, one connection was released by the OPs during the said period. Meaning thereby the Applicant was deprived of the connection without any reason. Non-release of the connection for such a long period of 7 years without any ground or justification amounts to 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the OPs. The Appeal i.e. First Appeal No.645 of 2022 is also liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The judgments relied upon by learned Counsel for the Appellants/OPs are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
First Appeal No.645 of 2022 41First Appeal No.312 of 2022
40. In the said case, the Respondent/Complainant had applied for tubewell connection of 7.5 BHP with the OPs in the month of January, 2017 under the scheme of 'Chairman Discretionary Quota' and had also completed the required formalities. The OPs had assured him to release the tubewell connection within a period of one month. Believing their assurance, the Complainant had sown the paddy crop in his fields but due to non-release of the tubewell connection, the entire paddy crop of the Complainant was destroyed due to lack of water.
41. Upon issuance of notice, the OPs had appeared and filed joint reply stating therein that the connection could not be issued due to imposition of 'Model Code of Conduct' in the State of Punjab on 04.01.2017 due to elections and the Complainant had also failed to complete the required formalities.
42. By considering the contents of the Complaint as well as the reply filed by the OPs as well as on hearing the arguments of both the parties, the District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 15.11.2021. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-20 to 22 is reproduced as under:
"20. For the reasons recorded above, the Complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to release the tubewell electric connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota, as already sanctioned/allowed to the Complainant.First Appeal No.645 of 2022 42
21. It is made clear that the Complainant will be liable to deposit the charges and complete the formalities, if any legally required.
22. The compliance of this order be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
43. In said case the Appellants have taken a stand that the Complaint was time barred, as the connection was applied on 04.01.2017 whereas the Complaint was filed on 16.07.2020. It is relevant to mention that the limitation was not started from the date of Application, rather it was a continuing cause of action since the connection was not released by the OPs on the one ground or the other and ultimately, the Complainant had to file the Complaint before the District Commission.
First Appeal No.515 of 2022
44. In the said case, the Respondent/Complainant had applied for tubewell connection with the OPs. The connection was ordered to be released to him under 'Chairman's Discretionary Quota' on priority basis vide Memo No.44949/Approved/S-5/167/Jaitu dated 21.12.2016 subject to completion of the required formalities. However, the OPs had neither accepted the documents of the Complainant on the ground that the Model Code of Conduct was imposed in the State nor released the tubewell connection. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as mentioned above.
45. By considering the contents of the Complaint as well as the reply filed by the OPs as well as on hearing the arguments of both the parties, the District Commission had allowed the Complaint vide order First Appeal No.645 of 2022 43 dated 15.11.2021. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-10 is reproduced as under:
"10 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Complaint filed by the Complainant is accepted and O.P.s are directed to issue tubewell connection to Complainant as per Chairman Quota. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which Complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.."First Appeal No.516 of 2022
46. In the said case also, the Respondent/Complainant had applied for tubewell connection with the OPs. The connection was ordered to be released to him under 'Chairman's Discretionary Quota' on priority basis vide Memo No.48681/Approved/S-5/167/Jaitu dated 26.12.2016 subject to completion of the required formalities. However, the OPs had neither accepted the documents of the Complainant on the ground that the Model Code of Conduct was imposed in the State nor released the tubewell connection. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as mentioned above.
47. By considering the contents of the Complaint as well as the reply filed by the OPs as well as on hearing the arguments of both the parties, the District Commission had allowed the Complaint vide order dated 15.11.2021. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-10 is reproduced as under:
"10 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Complaint filed by the Complainant is accepted and OPs are directed to issue tubewell connection to Complainant as per Chairman Quota and are further directed to take care in dealing with such cases in future.First Appeal No.645 of 2022 44
Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which Complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room."First Appeal No.533 of 2022
48. In the said case also, the Respondent/Complainant had applied for AP connection with the OPs and had deposited an amount of ₹3,500/- vide receipt dated 18.02.2013. Subsequently, on the persuasion of OP No.3, the Complainant had got shifted his Application under 'Chairman's Discretionary Quota'. He had further paid an amount of ₹25,100/- to the OPs vide receipt dated 28.12.2016 and also completed the required formalities. However, still no connection was released to him. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as mentioned above.
49. By considering the contents of the Complaint as well as the reply filed by the OPs as well as on hearing the arguments of both the parties, the District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 27.04.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-14 is reproduced as under:
"14. In view of the above discussion, present Complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to issue demand notice to the Complainant under the Chairman Discretionary Quota and after completing all the necessary formalities and got depositing the requisite fee from the Complainant, the opposite parties are directed to release the tubewell connection in favour of the Complainant under Chairman Discretionary Quota. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 3,300/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance."First Appeal No.645 of 2022 45 First Appeal No.785 of 2022
50. In the said case also, the Respondent/Complainant had applied for AP connection with the OPs in the month of December, 2016 under the scheme 'Chairman's Discretionary Quota', which was approved by the OPs vide letter dated 21.12.2016 subject to compliance of certain terms and conditions as mentioned therein. He had paid an amount of ₹16,500/- to the OPs vide receipt dated 02.01.2017 and also completed the required formalities. However, no connection was released to him. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as mentioned above.
51. By considering the contents of the Complaint as well as the reply filed by the OPs as well as on hearing the arguments of both the parties, the District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 28.04.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Paras-21 to 23 is reproduced as under:
"21. For the reasons recorded above, the Complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to release the tubewell electric connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota, as already sanctioned/allowed to the Complainant.
22. It is made clear that the Complainant will be liable to deposit the charges and complete the formalities, if any legally required.
23. The compliance of this order be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."First Appeal No.786 of 2022
52. In the said case also, the Respondent/Complainant had applied for 7.5 BHP AP connection with the OPs in the month of December, 2016 under the scheme 'Chairman's Discretionary First Appeal No.645 of 2022 46 Quota', which was approved by the OPs vide letter dated 05.10.2016 subject to compliance of certain terms and conditions as mentioned therein. He had paid an amount of ₹16,500/- to the OPs vide receipt dated 21.12.2016 and had also completed the required formalities. However, no connection was released to him. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as mentioned above.
53. By considering the contents of the Complaint as well as the reply filed by the OPs as well as on hearing the arguments of both the parties, the District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 28.04.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Paras-21 to 23 is reproduced as under:
"21. For the reasons recorded above, the Complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to release the tubewell electric connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota, as already sanctioned/allowed to the Complainant.
22. It is made clear that the Complainant will be liable to deposit the charges and complete the formalities, if any legally required.
23. The compliance of this order be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."First Appeal No.849 of 2022
54. In the said case also, the Respondent/Complainant had applied for tubewell connection with the OPs under the scheme 'Chairman's Discretionary Quota' on priority basis, for which necessary sanction was granted by the OPs. She had also paid an amount of ₹16,700/- to the OPs vide receipt dated 03.01.2017 and had also completed the required formalities. However, no connection was released to her. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as First Appeal No.645 of 2022 47 mentioned above. It was further mentioned that in the year 2015, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had passed an order to stop the release of tubewell connections in the State of Punjab due to lower level of water. Said ban was lifted in the year 2015 with the recommendations that the connections would be released to those persons, who had applied earlier.
55. By considering the contents of the Complaint as well as the reply filed by the OPs as well as on hearing the arguments of both the parties, the District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 26.04.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Paras-24 to 26 is reproduced as under:
"24. For the reasons recorded above, the Complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to release the tubewell electric connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota, as already sanctioned/allowed to the Complainant.
25. It is made clear that the Complainant will be liable to deposit the charges and complete the formalities, if any legally required.
26. The compliance of this order be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
56. The OPs had taken the stand that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had passed an order in the year 2015 not to release any tubewell connection in the State of Punjab due to lower level of water. Said ban was lifted in the year 2015 with the recommendations that the connections would be released to those persons, who had applied earlier.
57. It is relevant to mention that no such order of the NGT has been produced on record by the OPs. Even otherwise, as per the First Appeal No.645 of 2022 48 version of the OPs, said ban was lifted in the year 2015, whereas the Complainant had applied for the tubewell connection in the end of the year 2016. The Application of the Complainant was duly approved and sanctioned by the OPs but even thereafter the tubewell connection was not released.
First Appeal No.1000 of 2022
58. In the said case also, the Respondent/Complainant had applied for tubewell connection with the OPs under the scheme 'Chairman's Discretionary Quota' on priority basis, for which necessary sanction was granted by the OPs vide letter dated 21.12.2016. He had paid an amount of ₹16,700/- to the OPs vide receipt dated 02.01.2017 and had also completed the required formalities. However, no connection was released to him. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as mentioned above.
59. By considering the contents of the Complaint as well as the reply filed by the OPs as well as on hearing the arguments of both the parties, the District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 31.05.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Paras-22 to 24 is reproduced as under:
"22. For the reasons recorded above, the Complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to release the tubewell electric connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota, as already sanctioned/allowed to the Complainant.
23. It is made clear that the Complainant will be liable to deposit the charges and complete the formalities, if any legally required.
24. The compliance of this order be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."First Appeal No.645 of 2022 49 First Appeal No.1001 of 2022
60. In the said case also, the Respondent/Complainant had applied for tubewell connection with the OPs under the scheme 'Chairman's Discretionary Quota', for which necessary sanction was granted by the OPs. He had paid an amount of ₹11,100/- to the OPs vide receipt dated 04.01.2017 and had also completed the required formalities. However, no connection was released to him. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as mentioned above.
61. By considering the contents of the Complaint as well as the reply filed by the OPs as well as on hearing the arguments of both the parties, the District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 31.05.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Paras-25 to 27 is reproduced as under:
"25. For the reasons recorded above, the Complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to release the tubewell electric connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota, as already sanctioned/allowed to the Complainant.
26. It is made clear that the Complainant will be liable to deposit the charges and complete the formalities, if any legally required.
27. The compliance of this order be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."First Appeal No.1002 of 2022
62. In the said case also, the Respondent/Complainant had applied for tubewell connection with the OPs under the scheme 'Chairman's Discretionary Quota', for which necessary sanction was granted by the OPs. He had paid an amount of ₹11,100/- to the OPs vide receipt dated 04.01.2017 and had also completed the required First Appeal No.645 of 2022 50 formalities. However, no connection was released to him. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as mentioned above.
63. By considering the contents of the Complaint as well as the reply filed by the OPs as well as on hearing the arguments of both the parties, the District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 31.05.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Paras-25 to 27 is reproduced as under:
"25. For the reasons recorded above, the Complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to release the tubewell electric connection under Chairman's Discretionary Quota, as already sanctioned/allowed to the Complainant.
26. It is made clear that the Complainant will be liable to deposit the charges and complete the formalities, if any legally required.
27. The compliance of this order be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."First Appeal No.1052 of 2022
64. In the said case also, the Respondent/Complainant had applied for tubewell connection with the OPs under the scheme 'Chairman's Discretionary Quota', for which necessary sanction was granted by the OPs vide letter dated 21.12.2016. He had paid an amount of ₹41,880/- to the OPs vide receipt dated 02.01.2017 and had also completed the required formalities. However, no connection was released to him. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as mentioned above.
65. The District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 23.08.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Paras-8 & 9 is reproduced as under: First Appeal No.645 of 2022 51
"8. In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the Complaint and directed the Ops to release the tubewell connection after receiving all fee/charges, if any required more. Further, the Ops are directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses for delaying in releasing of said connection to the Complainant. Disciplinary action should be taken against officer/officials who had not complied with the instructions of CE Commercial memo No.137 - 141/Clarification dated 20.04.2021 Ex.C-6.
9. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order."First Appeal No.1086 of 2022
66. In the said case also, the Respondent/Complainant had applied for tubewell connection with the OPs under the scheme 'Chairman's Discretionary Quota', for which necessary sanction was granted by the OPs vide letter dated 26.12.2016. He had paid the security charges of ₹2,100/- as well as ₹20,000/- to the OPs vide receipts dated 03.01.2017 and had also completed the required formalities. However, no connection was released to him. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as mentioned above.
67. The District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 25.07.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Paras-12 & 13 is reproduced as under:
"12 In view of the above discussion, aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Complaint filed by the Complainant is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/-as compensation and litigation expenses against OPs. OPs are directed to issue tubewell connection to Complainant 13 Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order. It is made clear that Complainant shall be First Appeal No.645 of 2022 52 liable to deposit charges and to complete the formalities if any, legally required."First Appeal No.1087 of 2022
68. In the said case also, the Respondent/Complainant had applied for tubewell connection with the OPs under the scheme 'Chairman's Discretionary Quota', for which necessary sanction was granted by the OPs vide letter dated 21.12.2016. He had paid the security charges of ₹2,100/- as well as ₹20,000/- to the OPs vide receipts dated 27.12.2016 and had also completed the required formalities. However, no connection was released to him. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as mentioned above.
69. The District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 25.07.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Paras-12 & 13 is reproduced as under:
"12 In view of the above discussion, aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Complaint filed by the Complainant is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/-as compensation and litigation expenses against OPs. OPs are directed to issue tubewell connection to Complainant 13 Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order. It is made clear that Complainant shall be liable to deposit charges and to complete the formalities if any, legally required."First Appeal No.1088 of 2022
70. In the said case also, the Respondent/Complainant had applied for tubewell connection with the OPs under the scheme 'Chairman's Discretionary Quota', for which necessary sanction was granted by the OPs vide letter dated 21.12.2016. He had paid the First Appeal No.645 of 2022 53 security charges of ₹2,100/- as well as ₹20,000/- to the OPs vide receipts dated 27.12.2016 and had also completed the required formalities. However, no connection was released to him. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as mentioned above.
71. The District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 25.07.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Paras-12 & 13 is reproduced as under:
"12 In view of the above discussion, aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Complaint filed by the Complainant is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses against OPs. OPs are directed to issue tubewell connection to Complainant.
13 Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order. It is made clear that Complainant shall be liable to deposit charges and to complete the formalities if any, legally required."First Appeal No.1089 of 2022
72. In the said case also, the Respondent/Complainant had applied for tubewell connection with the OPs under the scheme 'Chairman's Discretionary Quota', for which the necessary sanction was granted by the OPs vide letter dated 21.12.2016. He had paid the security charges of ₹2,100/- as well as ₹20,000/- to the OPs vide receipts dated 27.12.2016 and had also completed the required formalities. However, still no connection was released to him. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as mentioned above. First Appeal No.645 of 2022 54
73. The District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 25.07.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Paras-12 & 13 is reproduced as under:
"12 In view of the above discussion, aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Complaint filed by the Complainant is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses against OPs. OPs are directed to issue tubewell connection to Complainant 13 Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order. It is made clear that Complainant shall be liable to deposit charges and to complete the formalities if any, legally required."First Appeal No.440 of 2023
74. In the said case also, the Respondent/Complainant had been doing the cultivation of Horticulture on his land through Drip/Mini Sprinker system, which was got installed from Guru Nanak Farm Solutions, Bhai Daya Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. Said system was functioning properly as per the report of Soil Conservation Officer, Bathinda, who had recommended the case of the Complainant to PSPCL to provide 10 BHP connection. The Complainant had applied for said connection to the OPs on priority basis. He had also paid the required fee of ₹1,600/- on 17.07.2018 as well as ₹85,000/- on 18.08.2017 and had also completed the required formalities. However, still no connection was released to him. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as mentioned above. It was further mentioned that due to huge pendency of Demand Notices already issued, no fresh Demand Notices were issued against General Category or any Priority Category till further orders except the Applications pending till cut-off First Appeal No.645 of 2022 55 date i.e. 13.04.2018. Further it was mentioned that as per sketch issued by the Deptt. of Soil and Water Conservation Officer, the Complainant had 10x10 (meter) land spacing for sowing vegetable crops.
75. The District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 16.03.2023. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-19 is reproduced as under:
"19. Accordingly, present Complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to release priority connection of 7.5 BHP to Complainant, as admitted by opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs."
76. It is relevant to mention that the Soil Conservation Department had recommended to issue the connection vide letter dated 13.04.2018 (Ex.C-2), wherein it was mentioned that the Drip/Mini Sprinkler System was installed on the land of the Complainant measuring 1 hectare, which was running properly and as such the connection was required to be released so that said system may work properly. A Certificate dated 11.04.2018 (Ex.C-3) issued by the Soil Conservation Deptt., Bathinda was also produced on record. However, the OPs had not released the connection to the Complainant in-spite of all these facts, which amounts to 'deficiency in service' on their part.
First Appeal No.441 of 2023
77. In the said case also, the Respondent/Complainant had been doing the cultivation of Horticulture on his land through Drip/Mini First Appeal No.645 of 2022 56 Sprinker system, which was got installed from Guru Nanak Farm Solutions, Bhai Daya Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. Said system was functioning properly as per the report of Soil Conservation Officer, Bathinda, who had recommended the case of the Complainant to PSPCL to provide 10 BHP connection. The Complainant had applied for said connection to the OPs on priority basis. He had also paid the required fee of ₹1,600/- on 17.07.2018 as well as ₹85,000/- on 18.08.2017 and had also completed the required formalities. However, still no connection was released to him.
78. Similar type of reply was filed by the OPs, as mentioned above. It was further mentioned that due to huge pendency of Demand Notices already issued, no fresh Demand Notices were issued against General Category or any Priority Category till further orders except the Applications pending till cut-off date i.e. 13.04.2018. Further it was mentioned that as per sketch issued by the Deptt. of Soil and Water Conservation Officer, the Complainant had 10x10 (meter) land spacing for sowing vegetable crops.
79. The District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 16.03.2023. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-19 is reproduced as under:
"19. Accordingly, present Complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to release priority connection of 7.5 BHP to Complainant, as admitted by opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs."First Appeal No.645 of 2022 57
80. It is relevant to mention that the Soil Conservation Department had recommended to issue the connection vide letter dated 13.04.2018 (Ex.C-2), wherein it was mentioned that the Drip/Mini Sprinkler System was installed on the land of the Complainant measuring 1 hectare, which was running properly and as such the connection was required to be released so that said system may work properly. A Certificate dated 11.04.2018 (Ex.C-3) issued by the Soil Conservation Deptt., Bathinda was also produced on record. However, still the OPs had not released the connection to the Complainant in-spite of all these facts, which amounts to 'deficiency in service' on their part.
81. In view of the reasons as well as the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, the 'deficiency in service' of the OPs has been clearly proved in all the cases, as the connections were not released for a longer period and that too without any sufficient reasons in-spite of completion of all the necessary formalities and on depositing the required amount. Rather, certain connections were issued/given by adopting the pick and choose policy, which is contrary to the principals of natural justice as well as unfair and discriminatory. The impugned orders passed by the District Commission are based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on the record.
82. The First Appeal No.645 of 2022 is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹50,000/-, as in said case, it has First Appeal No.645 of 2022 58 been proved on record from the Inquiry Reports that the concerned officers/officials of the OPs were negligent and careless in not putting up/process the case of the Applicant intentionally for the reasons best known to them. Even after conducting the inquiry, wherein the negligence and inaction of certain officers/officials had been fully proved, neither the tubewell connection was released to the Applicant nor any action was taken against the erring officers/officials. The Inquiry Report dated 31.12.2019 was received after the expiry of the period of 3 years and that too after filing of the Appeal to CMD, PSPCL during the pendency of the present Appeal. The Complainant had been running from pillar to post for getting the connection but it was not released due to inaction and willful negligence on the part of the OPs.
83. In remaining Appeals, neither any such inquiry was conducted nor any such willful negligence on the part of the officials of the OPs has been brought on record. However, there is a huge delay of approximately 7 years in releasing the connection in those cases without any sufficient reasons. The change of policy time and again by the PSPCL is not a ground to delay/deny the connections to the eligible Applicants. The Applications of the Applicants are required to be processed under the relevant schemes/guidelines/policies and subsequent change in the policy framed by the PSPCL cannot be a ground to deny the rightful claim, as they were in the queue under the First Appeal No.645 of 2022 59 earlier schemes. Non-release of the connections without any reason amounts to 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the OPs. No cogent and convincing explanation has been given by the OPs in not releasing the connections in said appeals. Therefore, the other Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.312 of 2022, First Appeal No.515 of 2022, First Appeal No.516 of 2022, First Appeal No.533 of 2022, First Appeal No.785 of 2022, First Appeal No.786 of 2022, First Appeal No.849 of 2022, First Appeal No.1000 of 2022, First Appeal No.1001 of 2022, First Appeal No.1002 of 2022, First Appeal No.1052 of 2022, First Appeal No.1086 of 2022, First Appeal No.1087 of 2022, First Appeal No.1088 of 2022, First Appeal No.1089 of 2022, First Appeal No.440 of 2023 and First Appeal No.441 of 2023 filed by the Appellants/OPs are liable to be dismissed with costs of ₹25,000/- each.
84. However, by considering the conduct of the OPs and harassment caused to the Complainant by the Appellants/OPs in not releasing the connection during long period, the Appeal i.e. First Appeal No.645 of 2022 being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹50,000/- to be paid to the Respondent/Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the District Commission is upheld. The Appellants are at liberty to recover said amount by fixing the responsibility of First Appeal No.645 of 2022 60 the erring officers/officials, who were instrumental in denying the tubewell connection to the Complainant without any reason.
85. The rest of the Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.312 of 2022, First Appeal No.515 of 2022, First Appeal No.516 of 2022, First Appeal No.533 of 2022, First Appeal No.785 of 2022, First Appeal No.786 of 2022, First Appeal No.849 of 2022, First Appeal No.1000 of 2022, First Appeal No.1001 of 2022, First Appeal No.1002 of 2022, First Appeal No.1052 of 2022, First Appeal No.1086 of 2022, First Appeal No.1087 of 2022, First Appeal No.1088 of 2022, First Appeal No.1089 of 2022, First Appeal No.440 of 2023 and First Appeal No.441 of 2023 are also dismissed with costs of ₹25,000/- each to be paid to the Respondent(s)/Complainant(s) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The impugned orders passed by the District Commission are upheld.
86. Since the main cases have been disposed of, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
87. The amount(s) deposited by the Appellant(s) at the time of filing thereof or in connection with grant of stay as per order(s) passed by this Commission, if any, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commissions forthwith separately in each Appeal. The Complainant(s) First Appeal No.645 of 2022 61 may approach the District Commission for the release of the said amount(s) and the District Commissions may pass appropriate orders in this regard in accordance with law.
88. The Appeals could not be decided/pronounced within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases as well as the Member was on Ex-India Leave.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER January 25, 2024.
(Gurmeet S)