Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjeet Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And ... on 4 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
231
CWP-8356-2022
Date of decision: 04.11.2024
AMARJEET SINGH ......Petitioner
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
.......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jitender Singh Gill, Advocate for the respondents.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has approached this Court for seeking directions
for release of the electrical connection to the Tubewell, as applied for by the
petitioner vide Application No. 1291 dated 07.03.1981, with an alternative
request to the respondents to decide the representation dated 11.04.2022, in a
time bound manner.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
had applied for release of tubewell connection vide Application No. 1291 in
March, 1981. In pursuance of the demand notice issued by the respondents, a
sum of Rs. 1914/- was also deposited by him on 28.08.1988. It is claimed
that he had been approaching the respondents repeatedly since then for
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143996
release of the tubewell connection but the needful has not been done. He
submits that the connection had been shown to have been issued on papers
on 20.07.1988 and Bill No. 8/8 amounting to Rs. 1964 was also allegedly
raised to the petitioner but in reality no such connection exists. He further
argues that the petitioner is owner of land measuring 109 Bigha 15 Biswa, as
per Jamabandi for the year 2015-16, situated at Village Momnabad, Hadbast
No. 20, Tehsil Ahmedgarh, District Malerkotla and has submitted numerous
representations to the respondents for the penal action to be taken against the
officials and also for release of electric connection. Failing satisfactory
response over a period of 34 years, the instant writ petition has been filed.
3. A status report by way of affidavit of Amandeep Singh, Senior
Executive Engineer OP Division, Ahmedgarh, District Malerkotla has been
filed wherein it has been averred that on receipt of a complaint submitted by
the petitioner to the Chief Minister, the status of the application for Motor
Tubewell Connection was sought to be checked and a report was sought for
by the office of Superintendent Engineer, O.P. Circle, Ludhiana. In response
a communication dated 15.10.1999 was received back in the office of
Superintending Engineer/OP Sub Urban Circle, Ludhiana Vide Memo No.
37510 dated 16.09.1999 from Chief Engineer (Commercial Sales), Patiala
stating that the matter of release of Motor Tubewell Connection had been
investigated in detail and a report had been submitted by the office vide
Memo No. 6587 dated 11.05.1999. The matter was marked to Senior
Executive Engineer, OP Division, Ahmedgarh vide Endst. No. 15023/TG7
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143996
Chairman dated 15.10.1999 and further down marked to the Assistant
Executive Engineer, Sub Urban No.1, Sub Division Ahmedgarh vide endst.
No. 8558 dated 25.10.1999 for compliance. It has been averred that no
further communication had since been received.
4. Learned State Counsel has however argued that as per the report
submitted, the LT Line was laid in the year 1988 upto the point of
connection i.e. upto Tubewell of the applicant and a detailed prescription of
multiple probabilities has been stated thereunder. He further refers to the
report and submits that the service connection order dated 12.02.1988 is
available in the case of the consumer and the electricity connection was
released on 20.07.1988 by providing 27 meter 4/C Cable. The electric
connection had been released for 3.810 KW (5 BHP) load, whereas, the
A&A forms and the test report had been verified for 2.318 KW. A bill for
Rs. 1964/- was also released against Account No. V-I/1034 during August,
1988 which was alleged to have not been deposited and the Consumer was
held to be in default. No efforts were made by the Operation Office to effect
recovery nor any reason for non recovery of the said amount has been
recorded. It is thus submitted that the petitioner is a defaulter and electricity
connection is sought to be released concealing the vital information from the
Court.
5. The claim of respondents is, however, strongly disputed by the
petitioner and he contends that no connection was ever released and a wrong
claim, unsubstantiated or uncorroborated by evidence is being raised.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143996
6. Neither any other argument was raised by any party nor any
judgment was cited. The record was examined with the assistance of the
Counsel for the parties.
7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and going through
the averments contained in the writ petition as well as the reply filed by the
respondents, it remains undisputed that the petitioner had applied for the
release of an electricity connection for his tubewell in the year 1981 and that
a service connection order was also passed in the year 1988. Thereafter,
while the respondents claimed that the connection was released, however,
the petitioner insists that no such supply was made and that some frivolous
bill of Rs. 1964/- is shown to be outstanding against the said account of the
petitioner.
8. The respondents have also failed to refer to any other
outstanding/demand that was ever held recoverable against the said account
number even though the investigation into the complaint is stated to have
been initiated way back in the year 1999. It seems incomprehensible that the
investigation would not have been concluded despite a lapse of 25 years.
The status report in the present case was filed in December, 2022 and even
till the said time, the enquiry/investigation remained incomplete.
9. Under the given circumstances, this Court is not inclined to
accept the probabilities expressed by the respondents in their reply and
assume that the petitioner is in default of any such amount. The balance of
convenience rests in favour of the petitioner.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143996
10. Even otherwise, the respondents were apprised of the above
issue in the year 1999 and it would be deemed to be aware of any
outstanding amount due. The limitation prescribed for recovery of such dues
is 02 years. The respondents cannot be given a benefit in perpetuity for their
in-action or failure to take desired steps when it was so required to be done.
11. Under the given circumstances, notwithstanding alternative
remedy but taking into consideration that a period of more than 40 years has
elapsed since the submission of application and deposit of payment for
release of tubewell connection and that all other persons who were similarly
situated as the petitioner, have already been granted the benefit of release of
tubewell connection, the respondents are directed to release the electricity
connection in favour of the petitioner within a period of 02 months of a
receipt of certified copy of this order, subject to the petitioner depositing the
relevant statutory charges and further subject to existence of a tubewell at
the spot.
12. The petition is accordingly allowed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
NOVEMBER 04, 2024 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
