PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATIALA Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent is an agriculturist and applied for grant of tubewell electric connection from nearest urban feeder but he was being given connection from rural feeder whereas tubewell connections were given to Swaran Singh, Baldev Singh, Ajaib Singh and Jang Singh from urban feeder. All the four persons had submitted the test report and deposited the amount after the plaintiff, but they have been given connections from the urban feeder and he is being discriminated against. It was also the plaintiff's case that Ajaib singh and Jang Singh had applied for connections 4/5 years after the plaintiff and they have been given connections from urban feeder and he was being discriminated against.

(2.) Both the Courts found that the plaintiff had deposited the amount and got the test report submitted earlier to the four persons and yet he has been discriminated against. Since this amounted to violation of the rule of equality the suit was decreed by grant of mandatory injunction directing the PSEB to give connection to the plaintiff from the urban feeder. This is second appeal by PSEB.

(3.) The following table containing facts deserves to be kept in view Name of the Applicant Date of application Date of Demand notice Date of Submission of test report Date of Deposit of amount by applicants Date of acceptance of test report <FRM>JUDGEMENT_80_AIR(P&H)_1990Html1.htm</FRM> Whereas Baldev Singh and Sarwan Singh had applied 6 to 8 months prior to the plaintiff, Jang Singh and Ajaib Singh applied more than 4 and 5 years after the plaintiff. Demand notice was issued to Baldev Singh and Sarwan Singh a day before the demand notice issued to the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted the test report earlier to Baldev Singh and Sarwan Singh and also deposited the amount due before they did so. Date of acceptance of test report is not in the hands of the plaintiff and whatever was in the hands of the plaintiff, he did prior to Baldev Singh and Sarwan Singh. Jang Singh and Ajaib Singh came on the scene 4/5 years later. Even if an applicant moves earlier he loses his turn in view of instructions No. 24(e) contained in Sales Manual issued by the department and the precedence has to be given to those who deposit the amount earlier. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff is the person who had deposited the amount earlier to all the other four, and had to be given precedence. He had to be given electric connection for his tubewell from urban feeder even prior to Baldev Singh and Sarwan Singh. Not only that there was delay in giving electric connection to him, he has been denied electric connection from urban feeder. The reason given is that there was a revised policy. If that is so, that would equally apply to the other four also. The first two may be earlier applicants but the other two are those whose applications came 4 or 5 years later. The plea raised by the defendant does not stand the test of the rule of equality and the Courts below were right in granting the decree of mandatory injunction claimed by the plaintiff.