Chattar Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to release the electric tubewell connection to the complainant of 7-1/2 BHP immediately and to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension, harassment and loss of agriculture crop besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is an agriculturist having agriculture land at village Chaina Tehsil Jaitu District Faridkot. The complainant has applied for a electric tubewell connection of 7-1/2 BHP electric motor vide A&A form No. 1090 dated 22/2/1990, as such he has become the consumer of the opposite parties. In lieu of the above A&A form the opposite parties issued a demand notice to the complainant. In compliance of the demand notice the complainant has submitted the test report and completed all the required formalities and also deposited Rs.23,760/- vide receipt No. 449/86999 dated 21/4/2005 with the opposite party No. 2. Since the day of completion of the formalities and deposit the above amount the complainant has been visiting the office of the opposite party No. 2 repeatedly but no satisfactory answer is given by the opposite party no. 2 and kept the matter linger on with one pretext or the other. No notice has been displayed on the notice Board as sub Division, regarding release of the AP connections as per rules of the PSEB. Now he come to know that the connections of the junior applicants who have complied the demand notice after the compliance made by the complainant have been released by the opposite parties. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 many times and requested them to release the AP tubewell connection of the complainant but the opposite party No. 2 flatly refused to release the connection of the complainant which amounts to clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension, harassment to the complainant and also suffered a loss of agriculture crop due to non release of connection so he claims a sum of Rs.70000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- for litigation expenses. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 18-10-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. Rajneesh Garg Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the opposite parties have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees so as to settle the dispute arising between the parties but the complainant has not put his case before the said committee so the present complaint is not maintainable. The opposite parties have not been properly impleaded so the complaint be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The present complainant is not the consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act so the complaint is no locus-standi to file the present complaint. On merits the opposite parties admitted that the complainant had applied for electric tubewell connection. The tubewell connections are issued as per the rules and regulations and circulars of the opposite parties from time to time. As per instructions no tubewell connection is to be installed against the application which are registered after 31/3/1988. The application of the complainant has been registered after the said period so the tubewell connection not be installed to the present complainant. The connections are released as and when the tenure comes. It is wrong that the connection has been released to the junior applicants. There cannot be bye-pass to the seniority list and connections are released purely according to seniority. The connection to the complainant would be released as and when his turn comes, so there is no deficiency of the service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has not suffered any loss on account of any act on the part of the opposite parties. So the complaint be dismissed with special costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, photocopy of receipt dated 21/4/2005 Ex.C-2 copy of application dated 5/8/2006 Ex.C-3, copy of letter No. 31270 dated 13/12/2006 Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Major Singh AAE Ex.R-1, affidavit of Amarjit Singh AEE Ex.R-2 and closed their evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the seniority of the complainant for release of AP electric connection though is matured still opposite parties are not releasing electric connection in favour of the complainant. Opposite parties have released electric connections to the junior applicants. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that opposite parties have not broken the seniority with regard to release of AP electric connections. Still the turn of the complainant for release of electric connection has not matured so complaint is liable to be dismissed. <br /> 10. From perusal of the file it is made out that the seniority list changes from time to time so the seniority list has been prepared by the opposite parties on the basis of commercial circular No. 42/2006 dated 3/8/2006. However by way of this circular Commercial Circular No. 25/2006 dated 2/6/2006 para No. 3 has been deleted. As per commercial circular 25/2006 test reports received against applications registered up to 31/3/1988 in the order of seniority based on the date of the registration of the application leads to issue of material for release of only AP tubewell connections. As per Commercial Circular No. 42/2006 the works already in hand for which sufficient material stands issued before 31/5/2006 shall be completed and may not be withheld on account of above instructions. However where only poles and fittings/stay set etc. have been issued, no further material be issued. These above relaxations are given with a view that genuine cases where bulk of material stood already issued/given may not be unnecessary withheld. In such like circumstances the complainant placing reliance on circular No. 35/2004 is of no avail to the complainant. As the latest circulars are to prevail upon. Since the complainant is aspirant of release of electric connection so PSEB and another Versus Saudagar Singh reported in 2006(3) Consumer Law Today-322 relied upon by the complainant is not helpful to him in any manner. <br /> 11. Since no delay is being caused by the opposite parties unnecessarily so Punjab State Electricity Board Versus Harminder Singh reported in IV (2006) CPJ-424 relied upon by the complainant is not helpful to him in any manner. <br /> 12. In view of above noted facts and circumstances the complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. No order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 11/6/2007<br /> <br />