* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 21.03.2012
+ CM(M) No.1206/2005
M/S AMAR HOSIERY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocate.
versus
NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vikram Nandrajog and
Mr.Sunil Jaswal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. Order impugned is the order dated 15.4.2005. The application filed by the applicant through its proprietor Smt. Shakuntala Devi had been dismissed as not maintainable.
2. Record shows that the parties i.e. the decree holder Amar Hosiery and the judgment debtor North Delhi Power Ltd. (NDPL) had been referred for settlement before a Lok Adalat. The Permanent Lok Adalat of the NDPL vide its order dated 10.11.2003 had arrived at a settlement CM(M) No.1206/2005 Page 1 of 4 between the parties; it was observed that the re-inspection of the premises will be carried out and in case the shunt capacitor of the adequate capacity is found installed in the premises the LPF Surcharge will be withdrawn from the date of the deposit of the re-inspection fee i.e. from 26.9.1998 /25/8/1999; LPF charge will, however, be withdrawn from 01.6.2001. Contention of the decree holder was that the official of the department instead of carrying out a re-inspection had replaced the mater on 09.12.2003 and a new electronic meter was installed; on 16.8.2004 on a check it was noted by the respondent in its inspection report that five shunt capacitors of 5KVAR reading each made AMCAP were found installed in a working order in the disputed premises; the factor measured was however not recorded in this inspection report. Contention of the decree holder was that although this inspection report evidenced that shunt capacitor of adequate capacity were found installed and were in a working condition in the premises but the surcharge had not been withdrawn w.e.f. 01.6.2001; on the contrary the respondent had issued a letter dated 04.02.2005 wherein they have had stated that the power factor was found to be below 0.85. Contention of the decree holder is that he was expecting a credit of the LPF Surcharge along with CM(M) No.1206/2005 Page 2 of 4 interest in his account and in view of this expectation he had paid current electricity dues w.e.f. November, 2003; bills are now being raised by the department without giving him the adjustment of the withdrawal of the LPF Surcharge. Contention was that the judgment debtor be restrained from disconnecting his electricity supply; in this execution petition attachment to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- as LPF Surcharge which would have accrued to the account of the decree holder along with interest has been claimed.
3. The judgment debtor had opposed the maintainability of the petition. Contention was that it was barred under Section 22(E)(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
4. Arguments were heard on the maintainability in the first instance.
5. In a judgment reported in 77(1999) DLT 640 Shri Abdul Hassan and National Legal Servies Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and Ors. a Bench of this Court had directed the Delhi Administration to set up Permanent Lok Adalats to cover all such disputes as have been mentioned in para 17 of the said judgment which includes disputes relating to electricity.
6. Chapter VI deals with Lok Adalat under Section 21 the Award of the Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of Civil Court which shall be CM(M) No.1206/2005 Page 3 of 4 finaly and binding on all the parties to the dispute. Chapter VI A was inserted into Statute with the Amendment Act, 2002 w.e.f. 11.06.2002; Section 22 (5) specifies that the Civil Court will execute the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat as if it were a decree made by the court.
7. In view of the aforenoted provisions it is clear that the Award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat on 10.11.2003 was final and binding between the parties; it was a decree and was liable to be executed. Impugned judgment holding that the execution petition is not maintainable suffers from a vice. It is accordingly set aside.
8. Executing Court shall entertain the execution petition and dispose of it on its merits.
9. With these directions, this petition is disposed of.
10. For appearance before the concerned executing court to come up on 30.03.2012.
INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 21, 2012 nandan CM(M) No.1206/2005 Page 4 of 4