2. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared through their counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by stating that the opposite parties have not issued any Demand Notice for the installation of pipe lines to the complainant and further submitted that to make an estimate is the official work of the opposite parties, on which the complainant has no right to Demand Notice. It is admitted that the Drip Irrigation Scheme has been stopped. The connection mentioned in the complaint is of different category i.e. Chariman's Priority Quota in which Chairman of the PSPCL has discretion to issue the Tubewell connection, whereas the connection of the complainant is Drip Irrigation and the complainant has applied on 02.02.2016 and the PSPCL has not issued connection to any applicant superseding the complainant. It is further submitted that the CMD, PSPCL, Patiala has stopped to issue Tubewell connection under Drip Sprinkling Tubewell connection on 21.03.2016. There is no discrimination with the complainant by the opposite parties. The other Sub Division PSPCL, Dhariwal, Dehriwal, Kalanaur has also stopped to issue connection under Drip Irrigation Scheme. Since the issuing of Tubewell connection under Drip System has been stopped till further orders, so the right of the complainant has not been violated in any manner. The other allegations made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without any merits and the same may be dismissed. 3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-1/A along with copies of documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
3. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Singh, SDO – Ex. OP-1 along with documents Ex. OP-2 to Ex. OP-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
5. From the scrutiny of the case file as well as documents, we find that the complainant admittedly applied for Tubewell connection under the Drip Irrigation Priority Scheme in the office of opposite parties on 02.02.2016 by depositing due charges vide receipt No. 114/93314, copy of the receipt is placed on the file by the complainant as Ex. C1. Complainant alleged that he had spent huge amount of money for installation of pipe lines to obtain requisite certificate from Soil Conservation Department and also constructed a room, copy of the said report is placed on the file by the complainant Ex. C-2. It is further admitted that the requisite estimate as per routine was sanctioned by the Senior Xen, Gurdaspur Division on 21.03.2016. Upto this extent, there is no dispute between the parties and we find that after sanctioning of the requisite estimate by the opposite parties, further action is to be taken only by the opposite parties to issue Demand Notice and then after compliance thereof by the complainant to release the connection. But, the opposite parties have only taken a plea in para No. 7 of the written reply that the CMD, PSPCL, Patiala on 21.03.2016 has stopped to issue Tubewell connection under Drip Sprinkling Tubewell Connection, copy of letter dated 23.08.2016 placed on the file by the opposite parties as Ex. OP-2. Further, the complainant has also placed on the file copy of letter dated 25.05.2016 from Assistant Engineer, PSPCL, Behrampur to Sh. Samir Sharma, advocate, Gurdaspur, wherein it is stated that after the receipt of the application dated 02.02.2016 of the complainant, an estimate was prepared and sent to Division Office, Gurdaspur for passing the same, but before passing thereof a telephonic message was received on 18.03.2016 from Division Office to the effect that the connections of Drip Micro Sprinkler Scheme were ordered to be kept pending till further orders.
6. Now, we have to analyze and conclude whether the plea taken by the opposite parties is genuine? We have gone through the record of the case and find that no written instructions/orders have been placed on the file by the opposite parties, whereby the CMD, PSPCL, Patiala has stopped to issue electricity tubewell connection under Drip Irrigation Priority Scheme. So with these observations, we are of the considered opinion that the plea taken by the opposite parties is not genuine and it cannot be accepted and consequently, we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief.
7. As a result of our above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and the opposite parties are directed to issue Demand Notice to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of the order and the complainant is directed to make compliance thereof within the stipulated period and thereafter the opposite parties are directed to release the electricity tubewell connection under Drip Irrigation Priority Scheme in favour of the complainant within a month. Further, the opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment alongwith R.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to rush of work.
ANNOUNCED: (Shri Raj Singh) (Rajita Sareen)
July 08, 2019. Member Presiding Member
MK
