PUNJAB ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PRITPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of revision petitions has been filed against a common order dated 19.7.2002 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dismissing the appeals of the petitioner-opposite party and upholding the order of the District Forum. For one thing we do not find any question of law arises in these petitions for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(2.) Complaints pertain to denial of electric connections to the complainants for their tubewells bypassing their seniority. Com-plainants are residents of village Man Singh Wala, District Muktsar, in the State of Punjab. Due to water logging problem a scheme was devised by the State Government for grant of tubewell connections on priority basis in the water logging area of Muktsar District. A Circular was issued by the petitioner in which list area of waterlogged villages was identified. In this list village Man Singh Wala appear at Serial No. 78. That was in 1997. Necessary amounts for the connection was deposited by the complainants in December, 1997. However, in the year 1999 more villages of other two Districts were also declared as waterlogged and the residents of those villages also entered in the earlier list with the result the seniority of the complainants was disturbed. No reason has been advanced as to why it was so. Perhaps it was due to some external influences. That was wrong. Accordingly on filing of complaints, District Forum issued necessary directions which on appeal filed by the petitioner, were upheld and the appeals dismissed.

(3.) Still feeling aggrieved petitioner has come before us in this batch of revisions. When these matters were taken up it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he has received instructions to inform this Commission that the demand note has been issued to all the complainants and on their making payments thereof electric connection to their tubewells shall be energised. We appreciate that better Counsel has prevailed on the petitioner and necessary action will be taken to energise the tubewells of the complainants-respondents.