PSEB Vs. SAUDAGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. After hearing the learned Counsel and after going through the record and order passed by the State Commission, we are convinced that there is glaring deficiency in service; and it is writ large as would be evident hereinafter. The complainant moved an application for electricity connection for tubewell under general category on 1.3.1990. Subsequently, after several years a demand notice was issued by the petitioner and in terms of the demand notice the complainant deposited the demanded amount of Rs. 15,000 on 22.10.2001 in addition to security amount of Rs. 160 and filing of test report. But when the electric connection was not given, the complainant respondent filed complaint on 10.8.2004.

(2.) THE petitioner claims that electric connection could be given only in accordance with seniority. The complainant was at seniority No. 750 whereas connections in his category have been released up to serial No. 665.

(3.) IT is evident that neither electric connection had been given nor electric connection is likely to be given in near future. These facts are not in dispute. District Forum has passed an order to release the tubewell connection with cost of Rs. 1,000. On appeal the State Commission modified the order in the light of its own order in Appeal No. 338/2005, Punjab State Electricity Board v. Chhota Singh, and directed impliedly that the deposited amount should be refunded with interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Order in Appeal No. 338 of 2005 had been made a part of order in this appeal by the State Commission. Operative portion of that order reads as under: Punjab State Electricity Board would refund Rs. 15,000 to the complainant along with 12% interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment and to issue demand notice again to the complainant when, in the category of applicants in which the complainant has applied, the applicant at Serial No. 40 has been given the tubewell connection (as the complainants seniority number is 45). The seniority of an applicant would be determined from the date of registration of the application and not from the date the demand notice is issued. As a matter of abundant caution, we may observe that the refund of Rs. 15,000 as above and acceptance of the same by the complainant would not amount to cancellation of his application for tubewell connection.