State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Deepak Sood vs Hp State Electricity Board & Ors. on 18 December, 2009
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. Appeal No. 475/2009. Date of Decision 18.12.2009 In the matter of: Sh. Deepak Sood son of Sh. Jagan Nath, R/o VPO Nerwa, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, HP. Appellant. Versus 1. H.P. State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-4, through its Secretary; 2. The Executive Engineer, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Electricity Division, Chopal, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla HP; 3. The Assistant Engineer, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Electrical Sub Division, Nerwa, Tehsil Chopal, Distt. Shimla, HP; 4. Shri Surinder Singh S/o Sh. Nikka Ram R/o Vill. Shirguldhar, PO Kedi, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, HP. Respondents. Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President. Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member. Honble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant.: Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent No.4: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate. O R D E R
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel who is the standing counsel of HP State Electricity Board was directed to appear in this appeal, accordingly he has put in appearance on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.
2. Looking to the controversy involved in this appeal, as well as to the chequered history of the case, we feel that the complaint No. 305/2009 filed by respondent No.4 against the appellant, as well as respondent Nos.1 to 3 needs to be disposed of at the earliest. Reason being that if he is entitled to get electricity connection in the premises in question, then respondents 1 to 3 must do the needful at the earliest. And in case if he is not entitled to the same, in such a situation he must know the fate of his claim.
3. Record of the complaint file was summoned from the District Forum below. A perusal of the impugned order shows, that for all purposes application for the grant of interim relief has been disposed of, despite having called for the objections, if any may to be filed on the date fixed for that purpose. It is well known principal of law that interim relief in mandatory form is an exception and is not to be passed in a routine manner.
4. When this matter was taken up for admission, number of contentions was raised in support of this appeal by Mr. Mohinder Verma as well as by Mr. Peeyush Verma who waived notice on behalf of respondent No.4. However we feel that as already observed complaint needs to be disposed of at the earliest. At this learned counsel for the parties agreed with the order dated 16.9.2009 may be set aside, and it was stated at the bar by Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 that he shall prepare the reply to the complaint and deliver its copy against receipt to Mr. Peeyush Verma learned counsel for the respondent No.4, as well as to Mr. Mohinder Verma learned counsel for the appellant on or before 29.12.2009.
Thereafter in the like manner, it was stated by Mr. Peeyush Verma learned counsel for respondent No.4, that he shall prepare the rejoinder as well as evidence if any, and shall deliver the same also against receipt to Mr. Mohinder Verma learned counsel for the appellant, as well as to Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel by or before 10.1.2010. Thereafter by or before 20.1.2010 appellant and respondents 1 to 3 shall supply the copy of their evidence if any if they want to file, to Mr. Peeyush Verma also against receipt. Copies of rebuttal evidence, if any will be given by Mr. Peeyush Verma to Mr. Mohinder Verma on behalf of the appellant, as well as to Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel by or before 30.1.2010.
5. It was stated by learned counsel for the parties, that the case is listed on 24.2.2010 for filing of reply by respondents No.1 to 3. They agreed that the reply, rejoinder as well as evidence will be placed on record on 24.2.2010 by them and they shall argue the matter before the District Forum below on this date positively. It is further agreed between the parties through their learned counsel, that in case anyone of them does not adhere to the above schedule of exchanging pleadings as well as evidence right to file the same of such defaulting party shall stand closed. And their respective clients shall not make any grievance in that behalf, either in the appeal or in the revision as well as before the Honble Supreme Court of India, in the event of any of them intending to approach these authorities under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. District Forum below is directed to finally hear this matter on 24.2.2010, the date already fixed. Appeal is disposed of subject to the above directions after setting aside the impugned order with the consent of learned counsel for the parties given by them on behalf of their respective clients. Office will ensure that record be transmitted well before the date fixed.
All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.
Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this Order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.
Shimla, December 18, 2009. ( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.) President.
(Saroj Sharma) Member.
( Chander Shekher Sharma ) /Karan/ Member.