State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity ... vs Jagdeep Singh & Anr. on 18 November, 2010
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.292 of 2005
Date of institution : 21.02.2005.
Date of decision : 18.11.2010.
1. The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala.
2. S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Lambi.
3. XEN Operation, Punjab State Electricity Board, Badal.
....Appellants
Versus
1. Jagdeep Singh son of Jarnail Singh, resident of Village Chak Midhu
Singh Wala, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar.
...Respondent
2. Executive Engineer, Abohar Canal Division, Abohar, District
Ferozepur.
...Performa Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
03.08.2004 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Before:-
Sh.Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.Balwinder Singh, Advocate.
For respondent No.1: Ex-parte.
For respondent No.2: None.
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board and others (In short, "the appellants) against the order dated 3.8.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "the District Forum").
2. Brief facts of the case are that Sh. Jagdeep Singh, respondent no.1 /complainant (In short, "respondent no.1") applied for release of electric connection under S.P. category on Sarhand Canal Patti at Burji No.409/395L for lift pump and deposited requisite fee for First Appeal No.292 of 2005 2 registration of application. Respondent no.1 also obtained No Objection certificate from Irrigation Department as required by the appellants. The appellants also prepared an estimate
3. Respondent no.1 requested the appellants so many times to release the connection under S.P. category on lift pump but they flatly refused to do so. Due to non release of the connction, the respondent no.1 suffered loss of crops because he has no other source to lift the water from Sarhand Canal to his fields. It was further pleaded that the appellants had already released a connection to one Sh. Jagwinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh of the same village under the same category in his individual name and not in the name of society and respondent no.1 is being discriminated and prayed that his connection may also be released on the same lines.
4. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellants, it was submitted that the appellants processed the application of respondent no.1 and Senior Executive Engineer while scrutinising the application observed that respondent no.1 is not eligible for the release of connection under Lift Irrigation Scheme because he was neither Member of Society of marginal farmers, nor he was secretary of the society. The NOC dated 11.4.2002 Ex.C13 submitted by respondent no.1, which was obtained from XEN, Abohar Canal Division, Abohar was subsequently converted in the name of Tej Jal Paryog Society Mehna, Midhu Khera (in short "society") vide letter NO.367 dated 31.12.2003 (Ex.C4). This decision was also conveyed to respondent no.1. Thereafter the appellants raised objection that the application of the respondent has been moved in individual capacity and has not been moved through the society, therefore, the connection cannot be released to him as per provisions of Sale Regulations No.13.6.17.1 of the appellants. The appellants pleaded that Sh.Jagwinder Singh was an executive Member of Tej Jal Prayog Society.
First Appeal No.292 of 2005 3
5. It was further submitted that Sh.Jagwinder Singh was a Member of Society, whereas the respondent no.1 was not a Member of any society and further pleaded that six other share holders of the Society had submitted an undertaking that connection be released in the name of said Jagwinder Singh. Hence, it was pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
6. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2, it was pleaded that respondent no.2 has issued the No Objection Certificate to respondent no.1, but after raising objection by Tej Jal Paryog Society, the said No Objection Certificate has been issued to the said society and now no No Objection Certificate has been issued to respondent no.1.
7. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
8. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint of respondent no.1 and directed the appellants to release the connection to the respondent under S.P. category for lift pump and pay Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to respondent no.1, as connection has been released to Sh.Jagwinder Singh.
9. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants-PSEB have come up in appeal.
10. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the release of connection in the name of Sh.Jagwinder Singh was not strictly in accordance with the regulation No.13.6.17.1 and 13.6.17.2 of the Sales Regulations because the said Jagwinder Singh does not happen to be secretary of the Society and that mistake is committed by the appellants in releasing the First Appeal No.292 of 2005 4 connection against the provisions of the Regulations, but this does not give any right to respondent no.1 to seek the connection for himself. The appellants have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Amarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2005(2) SCT, 140.
12. We have considered the submissions made by the the learned counsel for the appellant.
13. It is an admitted fact that the respondent no.1 applied for tubewell connection under SP category under Lift Irrigation Scheme but respondent no.1 was not eligible for the same as he does not fulfil the requirement of Regulations No.13.6.17, 13.6.17.1 and 13.6.17.2, which are reproduced below:-
"13.6.17: Deep bore / lift irrigation scheme Tubewells applied by societies of small / marginal farmers: under central sectoral scheme. Priority will be regulated as under. 13.6.17.1: The applicant (Secretary of the society) shall produce copy of registration of the society indicating the full details of its members and their agriculture land holdings etc. 13.6.17.2: Connections shall be given in the name of the secretary of the society."
14. Thus, respondent no.1 is not eligible for the electric connection, but respondent no.1 is simply demanding that his connection may also be released just because another connection has been released wrongly by the appellants to Sh.Jagwinder Singh, who also did not fulfil one of the conditions of the said regulations i.e. he was not a member of the said society.
15. In Amarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2005(2) SCT, 140, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in para no.11 has held as under:-
" XXX XXX XXX A wrong order passed in favour of a party cannot create an enforceable right on the principle of "equality" as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In our First Appeal No.292 of 2005 5 view, the respondents are correct in relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Faridabad Ct.Scane Centre (supra) and of this Court in Munish Kumar (supra). In the case of Faridabad Ct.Scan Centre (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court as follows:-
"3. We fail to see how Article 14 can be attracted in cases where wrong orders are issued in favour of others. Wrong orders cannot be perpetuated with the help of Article 14 on the basis that such wrong orders were earlier passed in favour of some other persons and, therefore, there will be discrimination against others if correct orders are passed against them. In fact, in the case of Union of India (Railway Board) and others v. J.V.Subhaiah and others, 1996(2) SCC 258, the same learned Judge in his judgment has observed in para 21 that the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 does not apply when the order relied upon is unsustainable in law and is illegal. Such an order cannot form the basis for holding that other employees are discriminated against under Article 14....."
16. The above ratio of the law is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in toto and we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed and respondent no.1 cannot be given electric connection just because the connection was wrongly released to Jagwinder Singh.
17. The appeal is accordingly accepted. The order of District Forum dated 3.8.2004 is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by respondent no.1 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
18. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.550/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 21.2.2005. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.292 of 2005 6
19. The arguments in this case were heard on 11.11.2010 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member November 18, 2010.
Davinder