LAWS(P&H)-1989-4-119

MUKAND SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

Decided On April 10, 1989
MUKAND SINGH Appellant
V/S
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the parties agree that let the writ petition be disposed of at this stage itself.

(2.) The undisputed facts which emerge out during the course of the arguments are that the petitioner deposited Rs. 7,000/- under the A.R.P.C. Scheme before 31st March, 1987, for getting the electric connection released. But later the respondents demanded a sum of Rs. 6,264/- more to release the connection. The petitioner deposited that much amount also. The electric connection was released to the petitioner in June, 1988. The petitioner preferred a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to release the connection as well as the refund of Rs. 6,264/- deposited by him vide supplementary demand, in view of a judgment rendered in CWP No. 5357 of 1987, decided on 26th July, 1988, wherein it was held that the persons who have deposited the requisite amount on or before 31st March, 1987 under the A.R.P.C. Scheme, shall be entitled to the connection and the respondents have no right to claim more money. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that since the connection has already been released in June, 1988, the prayer for releasing the connection has become infructuous and only the relief with regard to refund of the money stands for which an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit is available to the petitioner.

(3.) There is no dispute that an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit seeking the refund of the money is available, but in view of the admitted facts and circumstances, it will be an abuse of the process of Court to decline this relief in these proceedings and ask the petitioner to avail of the other alternative remedy. The object of the rule of law is to reduce the litigation and not to increase the same. In view of the undisputed facts that the respondents are retaining the amount of Rs. 6,264/- deposited by the petitioner without any right or interest therein, it will be inequitable to direct the petitioner to file a suit for recovery of the said amount.