DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI NIGAM LTD. AND ORS. Vs. PERMANENT LOK ADALAT (PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES) HISAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 08.06.2015 (Annexure P -11) passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Hisar (hereinafter referred to as 'PLAPUS'), whereby application under Sec. 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') moved by respondent No. 2 has been allowed and petitioners have been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/ - and install a 63 KVA transformer within one month from the date of award. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 a resident of Village Gajuwala is having an electric connection bearing Account Number GL -ID/0263 from the petitioners through petitioner No. 3. The said connection was being fed through 25 KVA transformer SOP. Later on some more connections were also released from this transformer of 25 KVA and consequently load over it increased and transformer was not sufficient to cope up with the load. Petitioner alongwith the other consumer were facing the difficulty for the supply of electricity. Several efforts were made and ultimately in the year 2007 a special estimate bearing No. UK -674/2007/2008 was prepared and same was sanctioned by petitioner No. 3 for augmentation from 25 KVA transformer SOP to 63 KVA transformer under the Sub -Division of Uklana. Later on after installation of 63 KVA transformer consumers were getting electricity supply from the said transformer. There was no problem with the said transformer of 63 KVA upto 21.03.2014 but some defect occurred, in the same and the electric supply was effected. Several complaints were made to get it repaired but all in vain. Respondent No. 2 found that the said transformer was not existing at the spot and was shifted somewhere else by the official of petitioners with connivance and collusion with someone for extraneous considerations. He came to know that it was shifted to the fields of Vijay Haripal son of Mange Ram. Regarding this he complained to petitioner No. 3 but no action was taken due to the shifting of the transformer to another place. Petitioners contested the petition on the ground that the application was not maintainable and the same was false and frivolous. Respondent No. 2 was stopped from filing application by his own act and conduct. Respondent No. 2 had not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts of the case. It was also alleged by the petitioners that 25 KVA transformer was already installed in the field of Mange Ram. From that transformer, there were eight connections to different consumers, including respondent No. 2 and total load is of 17.539 KVA. So for better infrastructure estimate was prepared for installing 63 KVA transformer. But during that time when survey was conducted it came to the notice of the petitioners that all the consumers were fully satisfied with the working of 25 KVA transformer and there is no voltage problem so idea of installing 63 KVA transformer was dropped. It was also alleged that no transformer of 63 KVA was ever installed at that place and prayed for dismissal of the application.

(2.) PLAPUS after hearing the parties and going through the evidence on record passed the impugned award. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that PLAPUS has no jurisdiction to decide the cases unless parties are agreeing for settlement of dispute by negotiation, conciliation, settlement or mediation. The procedure adopted by PLAPUS is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and is not binding on the petitioners. The PLAPUS has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute on merit between the parties under sub -section (8) of Sec. 22C of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners made reference to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and another v/s. Jalour Singh and others, : (2008 -2) 150 P.L.R. 261 (S.C.), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Ajay Sinha and another, : 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 726, judgments of this Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v/s. Vijay Kumar and another,, (2012 -1) 165 P.L.R. 794, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another v/s. Kusum Jain, : (2015 -3) 179 P.L.R. 360, and judgments of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v/s. The State of Jharkhand and another,, 2009 (1) A.I.R. Jhar. R. 77, D.M. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Urmila Devi and others, : A.I.R. 2010 Jhar. 133 and Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Usha Sinha and others, : A.I.R. 2011 Jhar. 5.