TARACHAND SAHU Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has by this writ petition prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents 1, 2 and 4 preventing them from indulging in monopolistic trade and to issue forthwith new gas connection to him and prospective customers without forcing them to purchase hot plate. A direction is also sought that LPG gas dealer should carry spring balance along with him when he goes for changing gas cylinder.

(2.) The petitioner has submitted that public should not be forced to purchase hot plate from the distributor from whom the connection is to be released as this is not a pre-condition for releasing LPG connection for domestic consumption. A reply has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 who have pointed out that the connection was released to the petitioner and on the basis of complaint filed by him, a letter was written to the dealer respondent No.4 to immediately release the connection to the petitioner and also instructing that the purchase of hot plate along with release of the connection should not be insisted. It is also pointed out that after receipt of notice dated 7th March, 1986, a representative of the respondents 1 and 2 went to the house of the petitioner but he was not available. It was requested to him to get the connection released but the petitioner did not take connection. However, a letter was written to the dealer to' behave properly in future with the customers and should not insist for purchase of hot plate along with the LPG connection.

(3.) It is the old matter of 1985. Since a separate Consumer Forum has already been formed now, we need not decide the matter on merits. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we direct that the gas connection should be released to the petitioner forthwith and respondents 1 and 2 should see to it that the dealer does not misbehave with the consumers and does not insist for purchase of hot plate. With this observation, this petition is disposed of.