Complainant Charan Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to release his tubewell connection according to the memo No.5836/AP-2016, Dinanagar. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment, mental agony  and causing financial loss to him. Any other relief which this Hon’ble  Commission may deem it fit, may also be granted to him, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he has no irrigation facility in his land and he applied for Tubewell connection to the opposite parties under Chairman Quota on 27.12.2016 and deposited amount of Rs.11,500/- vide receipts No.445, Book  No.1163 dated 27.12.2016 and 127 Book No.89361 dated 28.04.2016 and  completed all the formalities of the opposite parties for releasing the tubewell connection.  Opposite party no.4 issued memo No.5836/AP-2016, Dinanagar to the opposite party no.5, but the opposite parties have not released the tubewell connection so far, although he many times approached the opposite parties and requested them to release the electric  tubewell connection to him, but they put the matter pending on one pretext or the other. The act of the opposite parties not to release the tubewell connection to him is illegal, null and void. He has next pleaded that on 5.12.2019 he alongwith  his Gurmit Singh son of Basant Singh went to the office of opposite party no.2 and requested them to release the tubewell connection, but of no use. Hence, this complaint.

 3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint  of the complainant is not maintainable; the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and concealed the material facts intentionally and deliberately; the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that complainant had applied the tubewell connection in the year 2016. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 sent the file to opposite party no.3 for passing the estimate but during that period the code of conduct has been enforced and due to that the estimate of the complainant did not pass as the proceedings has been stayed due to code of conduct and till date no new instruction has been issued by the department for the release of new connection whenever the Govt./Department  issue the instruction regarding the release of new connection. Then the connection of the complainant shall be released as per rules. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Rejoinder to the written statement filed.             

5.   Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3.

6.      Alongwith the written statement, opposite parties has filed affidavit of Sh.Ramesh Pal, SDO PSPCLtd. Ex.OPW-1/A  alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1.

7.    Written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties.

8.    We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; written arguments by both the parties and oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.      As detailed above, the complainant alleged that the opposite party has not released his tubewell connection under Chairman Quota sanctioned vide memo No.5836/AP-2016 (Ex.C-3). It was further alleged that all the formalities were completed by him as required and deposited Rs.11,500/- vide receipt no.445/1163 dated 27.12.2016 and 127/89361 dated 28.4.2016 (ExC-1 & C-2).

10.    Opposite party in their written reply admitted the fact that the case of the complainant was processed for release of connection. But during that period the proceedings for release of new connections were stayed due to code of conduct. It is further pleaded that no new instructions have been issued by their department for release of such connection. Moreover the complete ban has been imposed by the department vide circular No.20/18 (Ex.OP-1) on issue of the new (fresh) demand notice to any category of the tubewell connection except newly introduced priority of the freedom fighters till further orders.

11.     It has also been admitted by the opposite party that whenever the policy or new instructions for release of such connection is issued by their department, then tubewell connection of the complainant shall be released as per rules.

12.      From the above, we find that certain amount  as initial processing fee was deposited by the complainant to get his tubewell connection released under Chairman Quota sanctioned vide memo no.5836/AP-2016. But the opposite party has not issued any demand notice to the complainant in view of to stay due to code of conduct and further due to complete ban on issue of fresh demand notice vide circular no.20/18. We understand that issue of demand notice is preliminary necessary  for release of tubewell connection. Thereafter electric connection for tubewell is released by opposite parties after the compliance of the that demand notice by the consumer (complainant).

13.     In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion  that the opposite party is unable to issue fresh demand notice to the complainant in the present case of tubewell connection under Chairman Quota due to ban imposed as mentioned above in the proceeding para.  So the case of the complainant  can only be processed for release of connection when the ban imposed vide letter no.20/18  is lifted by opposite parties and new policy for release of such connection is issued by the opposite parties.

14.      Hence the present complaint can be best disposed off by giving directions to the opposite parties.

15.      Therefore opposite parties are directed to process the case of the complainant for release of his abovesaid tubewell  connection under Chairman Quota on priority under intimation to the complainant as and when the new policy for release of such connections is issued.

16.      The present complaint is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

 17.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

18.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                     

            (Kiranjit Kaur Arora)

                                                                                 President   

Announced:                                                        (B.S. Matharu)

March 16, 2023                                                           Member

*MK*