EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECT ), CITY DISTRIBUTION DIVISION-II, CESU, BADAMBADI, CUTTACK AND OTHERS Vs. CHAIRPERSON, PERMANENT LOK ADALAT (PSU), CANTONMENT ROAD, CUTTACK & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that the opposite party No.2 being the owner of the site in question applied for electricity connection to the disputed site in the duly prescribed format. In furtherance of the submission of the application form, she has also made certain deposit facilitating the power supply to her residence. The power supply having not been extended to the opposite party No.2's house, the opposite party No.2 initiated a proceeding under the Legal Services Authorities Act seeking a direction to the Electricity Department more particularly i.e. CESU for immediate supply of electricity connection to the opposite party No.2's house. The proceeding was registered as PLA case No.1/2016 in the Office of the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Cantonment Road, Cuttack. Finding a prima facie case in favour of the opposite party No.2, notice was issued to the contesting opposite parties i.e. the present petitioners. The opposite parties contested the matter objecting the claim of the petitioner therein stating that the power connection to the disputed site is not possible for the impossible grounds. Firstly, there is no passage at all to draw an electricity line upto to the opposite party No.2's house and consequently, in the event any attempt is made to draw the electricity line as it overlaps other residences and the railway track, it is being intervened by a railway track. Further, it is also contended that their attempt for drawl of the electricity connection has also been frustrated for the intervention of the local people on the premises of getting their house affected for such connection on the ground of live wire threat to their premises. From the order sheet in the proceeding before the Permanent Lok Adalat, it appears, the Permanent Lok Adalat also called for reports from the contesting opposite parties and after recording several proceedings, the proceeding before the Permanent Lok Adalat was ultimately concluded on 23.4.2016 directing therein the contesting opposite parties i.e. the petitioners to give temporary electricity connection to the house of the opposite party No.2 herein within a period of seven days from the date of the order. While recording the opposite party No.2's undertaking to bear the expenses for such connection, it is for the, order could not be implemented in due time, thus, the matter was taken up further by the Permanent Lok Adalat on 3.12.2016. On which date, the Permanent Lok Adalat again passed an order directing the present petitioners to comply the order dated 30.4.2016 by taking help of I.I.C., Jagatpur to avoid any hindrance being taken by the local people. The matter did not resolve there. As appears, the petitioners were not in a position to give the electricity connection, which resulted filing the present writ petition.

(3.) Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the observations in the report submitted by the competent persons pursuant to calling of the Permanent Lok Adalat and for the obstruction coming in the way of such connection, the direction dated 30.4.2016 could not be implemented and consequently, learned counsel for the petitioners claimed for setting aside the direction impugned herein. Referring to the provisions contained in the Regulation-8 of the OERC (distribution and condition of supply) Code, 2004, the petitioners expressed their inability to work-out the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat in order to facilitate the electricity connection to the opposite party No.2's residence.