JEET SINGH BISHT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is running a flour mill at Gairsan. District Chamoli. The petitioner has been making complaints to the respondents, i.e., local electrical authorities at Gopeshwar that there is excessive billing since 1992. The petitioner's grievance was that his meter was defective and the meter be replaced. Repeated applications were given and we need not refer the details of the applications. Ultimately meter was changed and a new meter was replaced. The earlier meter was found running fast by 10%. The petitioner was not satisfied and he deposited charges from April, 1992 to August, 1994, i.e., Rs. 26.053.80 paise and requested the authorities to correct the bills from April. 1992 to August 1994. The petitioner alleges that no correction was made but the power connection was disconnected on 7.11,1994. Despite requests made and applications filed, the connection was not restored. On 10.6.1996. Tehsildar, Karanprayag issued notice to the petitioner to pay entire arrears of bill (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition), i.e., Rs. 70,220. Again a request was made to the Collector to rectify the bill and Collector asked the Executive Engineer to postpone the recovery proceedings. Petitioner's grievance is that after the rectification of bill, the maximum consumption from September. 1994 to October. 1995 was not more than 440 units. Petitioner further alleges in para No. 17 that average bills are not more than Rs. 1,000-1,200 per month for October, 1994 to October, 1996.

(2.) Petitioner filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Chamoli. The term of the two members expired in October, 1996 and no member was appointed. In view of this situation, the petitioner would not get justice from the Consumer Forum. He has to knock the door of the High Court, The High Court entertained the writ petition in special circumstances under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and passed different orders on different dates for payment of the bill and also ordered the restoration of the connection of the petitioner. This Court also found the functioning of the Consumer Forum not satisfactory at District level as well as State level and passed different orders directing the Government of Uttar Pradesh to make the working of the consumer courts effectively.

(3.) It may be mentioned here that the controversy has been narrowed down and we would like to dispose of this writ petition. However, we would like to pass some directions regarding the working of consumer courts effectively at District level and State level.