First Appeal No. 335 of 2016. Case: Boota Singh Vs AEE, Sub Division, Nathana and Ors. Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 335 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: Ankit Duggal, Advocate and For Respondents: A.K. Sharma, Advocate
JudgesParamjeet Singh Dhaliwal, J. (President) and Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12
Judgement DateJanuary 11, 2017
CourtPunjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, J. (President)

  1. By way of this appeal, the appellant/complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as, "the complainant") has impugned the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereafter referred to as, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been partly allowed, directing the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred to as, "the opposite parties") to release the electricity tubewell connection to the complainant, as per Rules, Regulations and Circulars.

  2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant applied for the tubewell connection in "Priority Category of Family Partition of Land", vide Application No. 28680 dated 21.04.2011, at Nathana with the opposite parties. The connection was not released to the complainant under the said category. Feeling aggrieved against the non-release of the connection, the complainant approached the District Forum, alleging that the connections to the persons, who have subsequently applied, have been released and the opposite parties have changed the priority pattern of different categories, such like Drip Irrigation/Micro Sprinkler System etc.

  3. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the seniority should have been kept intact, in view of the earlier and the subsequent schemes, whereby the Priority List has been defined. It could not have changed his seniority. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that now this appeal has been filed for compensation for not releasing the connection well in time.

  4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties vehemently contends that the electricity to the agriculture fields is supplied free of costs and it is the Government Policy, to give incentive to various type of schemes and for that purpose, different category, such like Drip Irrigation/Micro Sprinkler System showing that minimum water mixed irrigation of the fields could be done, was formulated and, as such, it is within the purview of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (in short, "PSPCL") as well as the State Government to frame Policies from time to time for the interest of the better irrigation.

  5. We have considered the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

  6. There is no challenge to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT