Complainant Ajit 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 Electric Tubewell connection to him out of Chairman Quota after doing needful into the matter. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to him due to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties alongwith Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is owner of agriculture land comprised in Rect. 2 Killa 8, 9 Rect. 1 Killa 16, Rect. 2 killa 11, 10,20 situated in the revenue estate of village Gunia H.B.No.476 Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak. He applied for tubewell connection from the opposite parties out of Chairman quota for the purpose of irrigation of his agriculture land/fields. He deposited security amount of Rs.11,000/- vide receipt No.500 dated 25.10.2016. He had completed all the formalities and was ready to do needful as per directions of the opposite parties. He approaching the opposite parties continuously and requesting for release of tubewell connection but all in vain. He has next pleaded that opposite party no.3 with malafide intention also sent letter memo No.2586 dated 09-146 in which it was alleged that the spot inspection has been made and it was not clear that where he wants to take tubewelll connection. The opposite party also falsely alleged in this letter that he was contacted on phone but told that he does not need connection and some other person wants to take this connection. He given due reply of the memo in shape of Affidavit duly attested by Executive Magistrate Dera Baba Nanak in which he has mentioned numbers of his land where he wants to take connection and also deposed that earlier he has not taken any connection out of Chairman quota. Thereafter, he kept on approaching the opposite parties regularly and requested for release of tubewell connection but all in vain. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 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 in the present Commission; the complainant has not come to Hon'ble Commission with clean hands and has concealed material facts; the complainant has filed the false and frivolous suit with the intention to harass the opposite parties and the complaint of the complainant is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was submitted that opposite party no.3 personally visit the spot for the allotment of the tubewell connection in dispute but it was not confirmed that where he wants to get the tubewell connection. Thereafter, the opposite party no.3 also visited the house of the complainant on 9.11.2016 and the opposite party no.3 also contact the complainant through phone but the complainant stated that he do not want to get the tubewell connection, someone else wants to get the tubewell connection. After that the opposite party no.3 issued Memo No.2586 in this regard to the complainant for getting the clarification. The concerned J.E. Harjit Singh also moved an application to the Tehsildar Dera Baba Nanak for finding the exact position of the numbers mentioned in the jamabandi of the complainant, which was produced by the complainant with his application. So the allegations leveled by the complainant on the opposite parties are totally vague, false and concocted one.  The opposite parties did not cancel the electric tubewell connection of the complainant which was applied by him but for the installation of the tubewell connection in question the exact location of the khasra numbers mentioned in the jamabandi of the complainant is very much necessary. The allegations leveled by the complainant on the opposite parties are totally vague, false and concocted one. Moreover, the complaint of the complainant is a premature. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.   

4.       Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7.

5.      Alongwith the written statement ld.counsel for the opposite parties filed affidavit of Sh.Gurnam Singh, SDO PSPCL Ex.OP-1 alongwith documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3.

6.    Rejoinder filed on behalf of complainant.

7.         Written arguments have been filed by the opposite parties.

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

9.        It has been alleged in the present complaint by the complainant that opposite parties have not released his electric tubewell connection for agricultural tubewell under Chairman Quota.

10.      Receipt No.500 dated 25.10.2016 amounting to Rs.11,000/- has been placed at Ex.C-6, regarding security deposit by the complainant.

11.     Complainant placed on record the notice memo No.2596 dated 9.11.2016 issued by opposite party no.3 at Ex.C-4. It has been mentioned in  the said memo that complainant has denied to get this tubewell connection, but it is required by some other person.  Complainant has also put on record the reply to their notice issued by opposite party no.3 wherein it is stated that he has not refused the same.

12.      Opposite party in their written reply and arguments stated that the complainant has refused to get this connection and he has also not submitted the requisite documents required for exact location of land where the tubewell connection has been required.

13.    It has also been argued during the oral arguments by the ld.counsel for opposite parties during proceeding of the case that at present there is no policy of department to issue new demand notice for release of agricultural tubewell connection. As per COMMERCIAL CIRCULAR NO.20/2018 OF PSPCL, there is a complete ban on issue of fresh demand notice till further orders. Moreover initial processing fee of Rs.2000/- BHP has also not been deposited by the complainant.

14.    As per facts of the case detailed above the opposite party no.3 has not issued any demand notice regarding release of said tubewell connection to the complainant before imposition of ban. So we are of the opinion that under the present circumstances the complainant has to wait for release of said tubewell connection till the restrictions on issuing of such demand notices has been vacated by the concerned department.

15.      In view of the above, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

16.        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.

17.    Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                                                                                                         

            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

January 11, 2023                                                 Member

*MK*