By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The petitioners case is as follows:- 1. The petitioner is an agriculturist. He is the consumer of respondents and the number is G-1648 MVA and he has paid the electricity charge without arrears. But a notice dated 16.11.2005 was issued by the 2nd respondent demanding payment of Rs.712/-. On 16.11.05 itself he has paid the amount. When he reached the home after payment the electric connection was seen disconnected. One of his neighbour has enmity to the petitioner and that person influenced the respondents to do these acts. Hence this petition to restore the supply and also for compensation. 2. Respondents have filed statement of facts as follows: During inspection on 15.11.05 the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Muthuvara noted that the agricultural connection of petitioner is using for construction work. Hence mahazar prepared and the connection disconnected, according to the Act 2003 and bill issued for Rs.712/-. Petitioner remitted the bill amount and connection restored on 19.11.05. There is no personal interest in this matter. Hence dismiss the complaint. 3. The points for consideration are:- (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get restoration of power supply? (2) Whether compensation claimed can be granted? (3) Reliefs and costs. 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2 and R1 to R4. 5. Point No.1: According to the petitioner, he has no arrears of electricity charges and he has paid the entire amount. Ext. P1 is the demand notice dated 16.11.05 by which the petitioner has to pay the charge before 30.11.05. But on 16.11.05 itself the power supply is disconnected without giving a breathing time. The petitioner being prompt consumer paid the amount on 16.11.05 itself. From the records it can be seen that the disconnection is with prejudice. In Ext. P1 the details for charge is not stated. For alleging theft Ext. R1 is prepared and submitted. There is no independent witness and no explanation is furnished for the same. Criminal case is not registered. A copy of penal bill is produced and there is no evidence that it was served to the petitioner and no date is also seen in Ext. R2 penal bill. The petitioner has not disputed the Ext. P1 bill amount and he has remitted it. Even if Ext. R1 is prepared, no criminal case is registered. From the evidence, it is revealed that the petitioner has a right to get restore the electric supply, which is temporarily restored as per order in IA-1186/05. 6. Points 2 and 3: The above described things reveal that the 2nd respondent had acted with prejudice under the influence of somebody. Public Officers cannot act like this. The amount had to be remitted is Rs.712/- only and on the serving date itself the amount is remitted. Without granting breathing time, power supply was disconnected. If theft is there, criminal case has to be registered. Nothing was done. We come to the conclusion that 2nd respondent has acted with prejudice and he has to compensate it. He is directed to pay Rs.500/- as compensation to the petitioner. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to restore the electric supply permanently and 2nd respondent is directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as compensation to the petitioner. No order as to costs. Time for compliance one month. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16th day of May 2008.
