CHIEF ENGINEER Vs. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMM.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have questioned order dated 25.06.2009 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar-respondent No. 1 in appeal No. 27/2008 as well as award dated 14.06.2008 passed by Divisional Consumer Protection Forum, Srinagar in File No. 396/2007, Srinagar, on the grounds taken in the writ petition.

(2.) It appears that complainant-respondent No. 2 herein filed a complaint before the Divisional Consumer Forum for redressal of his grievances. Non-applicants-writ petitioners herein appeared and filed objections, thereafter had chosen to remain absent and accordingly exparte proceedings were drawn against the petitioner-department and exparte order came to be passed by the Divisional Consumer Forum on 14.06.2008 against them. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner-department filed appeal before respondent No. 1, was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 25.6.2009. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners herein have sought quashment of both the orders passed by the Divisional Consumer Forum as well as respondent No. 1.

(3.) Precisely the case of complainant-respondent No. 2 herein was that a water connection was provided to him by the petitioner-department under No. 4313/64 about 20 years ago and was paying dues regularly and there was no balance upto ending March 2007. He purchased a new house at Mohalla Shalapora, Model Village Tujjar Sharief and shifted from his ancestral place of residence situated at Village Tujjer Sharief, Mohalla Babapora and his water connection was also shifted to his new place of residence on 9.12.2006 after he paid all dues to the tune of Rs. 2265/- vide receipt No. 3187 dated 21.02.2007. Thereafter writ petitioner No. 4-non-applicant in the main complaint disconnected the water connection without any right and reason thereby deprived respondent No. 2 from drinking water which is against the mandate of fundamental rights. Accordingly, he filed a complaint before the Divisional Consumer Forum which was granted. The Divisional Consumer Forum after considering the entire facts, which have gone unrebutted, allowed the complaint vide order dated 14.06.2008, which was also upheld by the appellate court. Both the courts have returned concurrent findings of fact and are in no way abuse of process of law or have been passed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. Thus the writ petition is not maintainable.