BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CIRCUIT BENCH AT VISAKAPATNAM

F.A. No. 1518/2007Kakinada

Between:

Gunna

S/o. Kasiviswanatham

D.No. 4-5-11A,

Taditota Street,

Peddapuram (V&M)

East Godavari District.                                                          1. A.P. Transco,

Rep. by its Asst. Engineer

Peddapuram Division

Peddapuram

East Godavari Dist.

2. Eastern Power Distribution Company

Of

Rep. by its Divisional Engineer

Peddapuram.Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:               

Counsel for the Respondents:

QUORUM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

MONDAY, THIS THE 

ORAL ORDER:

***

The case of the complainant in brief is that he owns       

The respondent electricity board resisted the case.    The land of the complainant 

The complainant   

The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the government has instructed the electricity board not to give any fresh connections, since it was a policy decision, the same could not be interfered, and therefore the board was directed to refund  

Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal     

The point that arises for consideration is whether the respondent could be directed to supply service connection?

It is an undisputed fact that when the complainant sought electricity connection to his agricultural land, the electricity board issued a notice directing him to pay Rs. 35,720/- by letter Dt. 9.12.1999.    when he requested the board to      

Unfortunately, despite raising of the   

In said circumstances, the Dist. Forum directed the complainant/appellant to submit fresh application          

In the result the appeal is dismissed. 

PRESIDENT