Haryana

Ambala

CC/303/2023

BALDEV SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGING DIRECTOR,UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

BALDEV SINGH DHILLON.

10 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	303 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	30.10.2023
Date of decision	:	10.04.2024.

Baldev Singh (Senior Citizen) son of Mehru Ram, aged 74 years, resident of Village Kangwal, Tehsil and District Ambala (Mob No.82955-20956 and Aadhaar No. 9786 6261 3947.

          ……. Complainant.

Versus

1. Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidhyut Sadan, Sector-14, Panchkula.
2. Superintending Engineer, 'OP' Circle, U.H.B.V.N.L, Ambala, District Ambala.
3. The XEN, 'OP' Division, U.H.B.V.N.L., Ambala City, District Ambala.
4. Sub Divisional officer, 'OP' Division, UHBVNL, Chaurmastpur, Distt. Ambala.

 

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                       Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Complainant in person.   

                      Shri J.S. Rathore, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of directions to them to release new electricity connection to run a light industry to produce mushroom plants. 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant being an agriculturist is the co-sharer in possession of the land according to his share out of the land measuring 148 kanals 1 marla, bearing khewat no.116//108, Khatuni Nos.150 to 154, Khasra nos. 14//25, 24//4/2, 5, 6, 15, 25//1, 10, 11, 19, 20 (kitte 10 total land 45 Kanal 19 marals), 1//21, 25, 2//8/2, 9, 11, 12, 13min, 19, 20, 21, 22, 5//1/1, 15//6/3 (kitte 13 total land 58 Kanal 3 marlas), 2//13min, 6//4, 6, 7 (kitte 4 total land 18 kanal 17 marlas), 24//25/2, 25//21, 22, 23 (kitte 4 total land 17 kanal 4 marlas)  and  6//5 ( 7 kanals 18 marlas) and is having actual possession over khasra no.24//25/2 situated in the revenue estate of Village Kangwal, Hadbast No.319, Tehsil  and  District Ambala, as per jamabandi for the year 2018-2019. The complainant being having actual possession over khasra no.24//25/2 has raised construction of a shed/big hall measuring length 45 feet, width 40 feet, height 12 feet to run a Light Industry to produce mushroom plants as a business for his livelihood as well as for the livelihood his family members, and spent a huge amount over Rs.10 lacs on this construction. Consequent thereto, the complainant had applied for fresh permanent electric connection for a load of 19.90 KW through online application no.A34-623-53 dated 09.06.2023 with the OPs, to be released from 'OP' Sub-Division, Chaurmastpur. Requisite documents such like site map jamabandi for the year 2018-2019 of the concerned land, self affidavit supported by his aadhaar card and affidavits of the other co-sharers along with their aadhaar cards were also submitted. The initial amount of Rs.62,982/- was also deposited vide Payment Receipt No. YHMP1929286665. On 12.06.2023, it was utter surprise for the complainant, when he received a whatsapp massage from the OPs that his application for fresh permanent electricity connection has been rejected merely stating therein the reason for rejection that "affidavit from co-owners not attached" and even, the initial amount of Rs. 62,982/- has also been refunded to the complainant, whereas requirement of 'No Objection Certificate' or 'any Affidavit from the co- owners is not mandatory, as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sudharshan Kumar Sharma and anr. Versus State of NCT of Delhi and ors. W.P.(C) 13217/2019 decided on dated 14.11.2022 , wherein the dispute was between the real brothers and the electricity department had rejected the application of the petitioner, for getting new connection on account of non-submission of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from his brothers, but the Hon’ble High Court held that “a person cannot be deprived from getting an essential service of electricity without cogent, lawful reason. It is well settled that even if disputes exist as to ownership of the property at which an electricity connection is sought, the concerned authorities cannot be deprive the legal occupant thereof by insisting that an NOC be furnished from others who also claim to be owners”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dilip (Dead) through Lrs. Versus Satish  and  Others, Criminal Appeal No. 810 of 2022 held that "It is now settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question". But in the present case of the complainant, the OPs before rejecting the application of the complainant, did not bother to inspect the spot at which the fresh electricity connection is required, to find out the veracity of construction and  possession of the complainant over that site, rather they rejected the application merely on the ground of non submission of affidavits of the co-sharers.
3.           A bare perusal of jamabandi for the year 2018-2019 clearly proves the fact that Six tube-wells of co-sharers having electricity connections are existing on the part of the land in their possession, but at the time of granting electricity connections to these tube-wells, the OPs had not sought any type of 'No Objections Certificate' or 'any type of affidavit' what-so-ever from other co-sharers. In the case of Sudharshan Kumar Sharma and anr. (supra), counsel for the petitioners had brought in the notice of Hon'ble High Court that while electricity connection was granted to two of the respondents without insisting on 'No Objection Certificate' from the petitioners, but when the petitioners requested for a new electricity connection, the same was denied for want of 'No Objection Certificate' from the respondents no. 3 to 5, and consequently, the said writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:- (i) Petitioners shall make an application for grant of a fresh electricity connection in their own name. (ii) Respondent No. 2 shall process the petitioners' application for providing fresh electricity connection forthwith without insisting on NOC from respondent nos. 3 to 5 within two weeks from the date of filing of the application. The Hon'ble High Court directed the employees of electricity department that the application of the petitioners shall be processed and electricity connection shall be installed within two working days of the petitioners completing all the formalities.
4.           As such, in view of the above said facts of the above cited judgment, in the present case, the OPs have violated the provisions of fundamental rights as provided to the complainant under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.  Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003 casts a Universal Service obligation on the distribution licensee to provide supply of electricity to the premises of an owner or occupier, which reads as under:-

“43. Duty to supply on request.- (1) [save as otherwise provided in this Act every distribution] licencee, shall, on an application  by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply:

 

(3) If a distribution licencee fails to supply the electricity within the period of specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each delay of default”.

5.            Once the Act itself is silent qua any mandatory or statutory requirement of 'No Objection Certificate' or 'any type of affidavit of any person qua grant of fresh electricity connection, then there is no logic for the OPs to reject the application of the complainant merely on the ground of non-submission of affidavits of co-sharers of the complainant, and therefore, the OPs are liable to pay a penalty of one thousand rupees for each delay of default w.e.f. 12.06.2023. Inaction of the OPs, who have rejected the application of the complainant for providing fresh electricity connection suffers from patent illegality and being violative of the fundamental rights of the complainant is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The complainant is in possession over khasra no.24//25/2 on which he has constructed shed/big hall for running a business of producing mushroom plants for his livelihood, and therefore, the fact for determination by the OPs is whether the complainant is in actual possession of the premises qua which he has applied for fresh electricity connection, but the OPs  have failed to do so, whereas, the electricity being a basic necessity, is an integrate part of right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and as such, as long as the complainant is in possession of the premises in question, he cannot be deprived of electricity, as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab  and  Haryana in the case of Om Parkash Versus Balkar Singh and others CR-1153 of 2022 decided on 19.12.2022. The complainant is a poor person being belongs to B. C. category of Haryana State, and till date, he has spent a huge amount more than Rs. 10 lacs on the required construction work as well as on other necessary activities for the preparation to run the business of production of mushroom plants, and therefore, the requirement of electricity is urgent in nature and if, the same is not provided urgently to the complainant by the OPs, then the complainant will suffer an irreparable loss of economy and mental agony, and even, which may lead to his mental illness. On receiving the whatsapp message dated 12.06.2023, from the OPs, regarding rejection of the application of new electricity connection, the complainant is running here  and  there to knock the door of co-owners as well as the LRs. of deceased co-owners to get their affidavits  and  aadhaar cards and till date, the complainant has succeeded to collect the affidavits  and  aadhaar cards from more than 60% of such persons, which actually was not required as per law for getting new electricity connection, but then also, the complainant has been compelled to spent another amount more than Rs.5,000/-. Being not finding any alternative, the complainant approached the OP no. 3/XEN, 'OP' Division, U.H.B.V.N.L., Ambala City, District Ambala on 18.08.2023 for doing needful, upon which the OP no. 3 marked the application to the OP no. 4 with a direction not to pressurize the complainant for any NOC, but take an affidavit of the complainant qua this purpose, and thereafter, the complainant again approached the OP  no. 4 on the same day i.e. 18.08.2023, but the OP no. 4 flatly refused to take action for releasing new electricity connection in accordance with the directions of the OP no. 3. Thereafter, when the OP  no. 4 adamantly refused to release the new electricity connection to the complainant, despite the direction of OP no. 3, then the petitioner sent legal notice-cum-representation dated 18.08.2023 to all the OPs through registered post but to no avail.  As such, on 14.09.2023, the complainant had filed CWP No. 20638 of 2023 titled as Baldev Singh Versus State of Haryana in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh for the redressal of his grievances, which has been disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court, Chandigarh vide order dated 25.09.2023 with a direction to the complainant to approach the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum. Accordingly, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
6.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, not come with clean hands and suppressed true and material facts, no jurisdiction and bad for non-joinder of necessary parties etc.  On merits, it has been stated that in the absence of fulfilling the requisite conditions for release of the new electricity connection, no electricity connection can be released to the complainant. The complainant has wrongly applied for LT Category connection, whereas complainant should apply for Agro Industries/FPO Category Connection, which is clearly prevalent at Sr. No.5 in Sale Circular of UHBVN bearing NO.U-04/2023 bearing Memo No.Ch-34/TR-72 (90)/Tarrif/ARR/FY 2023- 24/CE/C-1 dated 15.05.2023. Due to applying for wrong category connection contrary to sale circular of the Nigam, the application of complainant has been rejected. Relevant part of the said Circular is reproduced below:-

"5. Agro-Industry/FPO (upto 20 KW) Pack House, Grading, Packing, Pre-cooling and Ripening Chamber, Honey Bee, Honey Processing, Tissue Culture, Zinga and Fish Farming, Poultry Farm, Pig Farm, Milk Chilling Plant and Cold Storage, Mushroom Farming upto 20 KW Load". Even the other co-shares have not given their no objections regarding the releasing of new electricity connection in favour of complainant. So, on this ground also the new electricity connection cannot be released to the complainant.

Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs.

7.           Complainant tendered his affidavit and affidavits of Soma Ram son of Shri Mehru Ram, Amrik Singh son of Shri Surjit Singh, Fakir Chand son of Shri Ram Chanderh, Satpal son of Shri Balbhader and Naib Singh son of Shri Banarsi Dass as Annexure C-A to C-F respectively alongwith documents as Annexure C-1, C-2, C-2/A, C2/B, C-3, to C-6, C-6/A to C-6/L, and C-7 to C-17 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered evidence by way of affidavit of Gautam, SDO (OP) Division, UBHVNL, Chaurmastpur, District Ambala as Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.
8.           We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant.
9.           Complainant has submitted that by not providing the electricity connection at his premises which was to be used for mushroom cultivation despite the fact that there was no legal hitch for the same. However, the OPs rejected his case on the ground that “affidavit of co-owners not attached”. By doing so, the OPs have committed deficiency in providing service.   
10.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating the objections taken in the written version submitted that since the complainant was bound to provide the affidavit of co-owners of the land, as such, his claim for providing new electricity connection was rightly rejected by the OPs. He further submitted that the complainant had also wrongly applied for electricity connection under LT Industry in place of AGRO Industries/FPO Connection Category, and that was also one of the main reasons for rejection of his case. 
11.           It may be stated here that it is clearly coming out from the Form for Electricity Connection dated 09.06.2023, Annexure C-2 that the complainant applied for New Electricity Connection under the category of LT Industry on making payment of Rs.62,982/-. Alongwith this form, the complainant has also attached his own duly notarized affidavit dated 06.06.2023, Annexure C-2/A to the effect that new electricity connection may be released for mushroom farming and that the other co-owners in the said land has no objection and that he is responsible in case of any dispute in that regard.  However, it is coming out from the documents dated 09.06.2023, Annexure C-3 that the case of the complainant was rejected by the OPs on the ground that “Other affidavit from co-owners not attached. Refund will be credited in your account excluding application processing fee within 4 to 5 working days”. It is significant to mention here that perusal of contents of document Annexure C-7 reveals that OP No.3 has commented that “SDO-Chaurmastpur-Why file rejected on point of NOC of co-sharers-No such requirement for NDS connection-Take affidavit”. However, there is nothing on record that even thereafter, the new electricity connection was released in favour of the complainant by the OPs, despite the fact that it is clearly coming out from the record of this case that the complainant had submitted site map, Annexure C-4, jamabandi for the years 2018-19 of the land in question, Annexure C-5, self affidavit alongwith aadhar card, Annexure C-2/A and C-2/B and even affidavits of co-sharers, Annexure C-6 to C-6L. It is also significant to mention here that even from the Antyodaya-Saral of Haryana Government, Annexure C-15 if it is evident that there is no requirement of any NOC or affidavit from co-sharers for getting new electricity connection by any individual co-sharer.  According to Table-1 of Antyodaya-Saral of Haryana Government (Annexure C-15) qua UHBVN following category of connections are there :-

(a) Domestic. (b) Non-Domestic Supply, (c) LT Industry, (d) HT Industry, (e) Railway Traction, (f) DMRC, (g) Bulk Supply, (h) Bulk Domestic Supply, (i) Street Light. (j) Public Water Works Supply, (k) MITC, (1) Lift Irrigation, (m) Independent Hoarding/Decorative Lighting. (n) Temporary Metered Supply.

12.           Under above circumstances, it is clear that there is not any separate category such like Agro- Industry/FPO Category for getting new electricity connection. At the same time, the OPs have not brought any statement on record that if the complainant would apply for the alleged Agro-Industry/FPO Category connection, then they would not raise any objection. Furthermore, according to Sales Instruction No. U-4/ 2018 of UHBVN (Annexure C-16) electrical connection for mushroom farming falls under Industrial Category, and in column no.3 qua applicability of Tariff Categories of its Sales Instruction No.6/2018 (Annexure C-17) has clarified that the electrical connections upto 50 KW comes under L.T. Industrial Power Supply, whereas, the complainant has applied only for a load of 19.90 KW under L.T. Industrial category. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sudharshan Kumar Sharma and anr. Versus State of NCT of Delhi (Supra) held that "a person cannot be deprived from getting an essential service of electricity without cogent, lawful reason. It is well settled that even if disputes exist as to ownership of the property at which an electricity connection is sought, the concerned authorities cannot deprive the legal occupant thereof by insisting that an NOC be furnished from others who also claim to be owners". The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dilip (Dead) through Lrs. Versus Satish  and  Others, (supra) held that "It is now settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question".
13.           As far as shelter taken by the OPs to the effect that since the complainant has wrongly applied for electric connection under LT Industry in place of AGRO Industries/FPO Connection Category, and that was also one of the main reasons for rejection of his case, it may be stated here that perusal of the document dated 09.06.2023, Annexure C-3 reveals that the case of the complainant was rejected by the OPs only on the ground that “Other affidavit from co-owners not attached”. Under these circumstances, now the OPs are barred from taking somersault out of the contents of document dated 09.06.2023, Annexure C-3 and as such cannot take a new ground to writhe out of their inaction or to evade their liability. Under these circumstances, it is held that the OPs cannot be said to be right in rejecting the case of the complainant for providing new electricity connection for mushroom farming, especially, when the complainant had already provided his own affidavit dated 06.06.2023, Annexure C-2/A to the effect that he is responsible in case of any dispute in future by co-owners and also the fact that OP No.3 has clearly commented that “SDO-Chaurmastpur-Why file rejected on point of NOC of co-sharers-No such requirement for NDS connection-Take affidavit”.
14.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the complainant to pay the requisite amount/fee to the OPs within the period of 20 days, from the date of date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The OPs are also directed to release new electricity connection to the complainant to run a light industry to produce mushroom plants, within the period of 45 days on receipt of requisite amount/fee from the complainant, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay penalty @Rs.50/- per day from the date of default, till the date of release of electricity connection. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

  Announced:- 10.04.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President