Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ANOTHER V/S MOHER SINGH, decided on Tuesday, February 14, 2017.
[ In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, CWP No. 6380 of 2014. ] 14/02/2017
Judge(s) : AMIT RAWAL
Advocate(s) : Aman Chaudhary. Ajay Vijrania.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2017 (3) PunLR 484"  ==   ""  







    Amit Rawal J.(Oral)1.The petitioner-Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. is aggrieved of the impugned order rendered by the Permanent Lok Adalat exercising the power under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act 1987 whereby direction has been issued to them to issue the NDS category connection to the respondent.2. Mr. Aman Chaudhary learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondent is already having the DS connection but did not fulfil the necessary requirements of law while applying for NDS connection much less submitted documents as per Annexure A like proof of residence no objection from the concerned local Sarpanch. In the absence of the same the connection cannot be issued. The petition under Section 22-C was thus not maintainable even the conciliation proceedings miserably failed. The zimni orders did not reflect any effort in this regard being made much less recording of any satisfaction thus there is defiance of the provisions of the Act. There is mixed question of fact and law involved. The remedy for the respondent if any was to file the suit seeking mandatory injunction where he would be able to prove the document of ownership by leading direct and cogent evidence. In support of his contention he has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. Union of India 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 262 and as well as the judgment of this Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vijay Kumar and another 2012(1) PLR 794.3. Mr. Ajay Vijrania Advocate for the respondent submits that the respondent is already enjoying the facility of Domestic Supply (DS) connection since he wanted to undertake the Non Domestic Supply submitted the application. The documents were verified by the local Lambardar thus there was sufficient requirement of law. Having failed to adhere to his request he was compelled to knock the door of Lok Adalat as falling within the definition of public utility as enshrined under Section 22-A of the Act. There is no illegality and perversity in the order. There is very little scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution thus urges this Court for dismissal of the writ petition.4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties appraised the paper and in agreement with the submission of Mr. Aman Chaudhary for the statute provides that an aspirant seeking connection is required to conform to the requirements of law in essence submit the documents as prescribed therein. In the absence of the same Lok Adalat cannot override the aforementioned provisions as if it was exercising the powers under Article 226 particularly when the conciliation proceedings failed it ought not to have proceeded further by invoking the provisions of Act of 1987 rather rested its hands and relegated the parties to the remedy as indicated above.5. The ownership proof or otherwise was required to be submitted for the purpose of grant of connection. Though there is passing reference in one of the paragraph that the land under the occupation of the respondent is unauhorized the said question being disputed question of fact could not have been entertained by the Permanent Lok Adalat. I am in agreement with the ratio decidendi culled out in the judgments referred to above.6. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case narrated above the Permanent Lok Adalat did not have the jurisdiction.The order is not only cryptic but fallacious much less suffers from perversity and sustainable in the eyes of law. The same is hereby set aside and the writ petition stands allowed.Petition allowed.