ORDER (ORAL)

        This case is a classic example of a Public Sector Undertaking, unconcerned with the wastage of public money and judicial time, dragging a hapless farmer, a retired Army man upto this Commission, who is running from pillar to post to get an agricultural electricity connection since the year 1978. 

Initially the Complainant had applied for the said connection in the year 1978.  However, his Application was rejected in the year 1999 on the ground that he had failed to deposit the requisite security amount.  Admittedly, he deposited the requisite amount on 30.12.1999.  It is not clear from the record, as to why the connection was still not issued.  However, when he again applied for the said connection under the

-2-

Tatkal Scheme, he was told that in the year 2017, a ban has been imposed by the Central Ground Water Authority on issue of tubewell connections.

        Aggrieved by the denial of the connection, the Complainant filed a Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) alleging deficiency on the part of the Petitioner in not granting the said connection.  After two rounds of litigation, ultimately, the Complainant got the desired relief vide order dated 21.10.2002 by the District Forum.

Despite it all, the Petitioner still chose to ignore the directions issued by the District Forum compelling the Complainant to file Execution Petition against them.

It is against the orders in the Execution proceedings that the Petitioner, viz., Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, (for short “Bijli Vitran Nigam”), has filed this Petition questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 30.01.2018 by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in Revision Petition No.7 of 2018.  By the impugned order, taking into consideration sequence of events, which led to denial of agricultural electricity connection to the Complainant, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Gurgaon (for short “the District Forum”) in Execution Application No.2 of 2017.  By the said order, taking note of the fact that the final substantive order dated 21.10.2002, passed by the District Forum in Complaint No.2187 of 19.03.2001, had attained finality by dismissal of Appeal by the State Commission vide order dated 30.05.2011, in the execution proceedings, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to issue electricity connection applied for by the Complainant within   10 days of the completion of the formalities by him for the said purpose.

-3-

        Dealing with the afore-noted 2017 guidelines, stated to have been issued by the Central Ground Water Authority, the District Forum had observed as follows:

      “We have gone through the said circular No.D-08/2017 with regard to release of tube well connection in the notified area, it emerges that the release of tube well connection will be subject to instructions of the Agriculture Department regarding not allowing additional tube wells in the dark blocks.  It has been further mentioned that as per the Central Ground Water Authority Guidelines the permission would be granted by the District Administrative Head i.e. Deputy Commission, District Magistrate and District Collector in consultation with the advisory committee constituted for this purpose.  As per the said Circular No.D-8/2017 entire Gurgaon District has been notified as notified area w.e.f. 13.08.2011.  It has been further stated in the said notification that in case any amount for release of tube well connection in the notified area has already been deposited by the applicant under General or Tatkal Scheme but the connection has not yet been released, the amount deposited shall be refunded.  Therefore, from the circular it is evident that no doubt the said circular             D-8/2017 has banned the granting of tube well connection in the notified area without the permission of competent authority in view of the guidelines issued by the Central Ground Water Authority and Hon’ble National Green Tribunal but in view of the circular No.D-08/2017 the tube well connection can be given subject to approval by Deputy Commission, District Magistrate or District Collector within the notified area.  Therefore, it is evident that there is no blank ban of giving the tube well connection in the notified area.”

(Emphasis supplied)

        As noted above, the said order having been affirmed by the State Commission, Bijli Vitran Nigam is before us in this Revision Petition.

        Having carefully glanced through the orders passed by the Fora below, in particular, the underlined portion of the order passed by the District Forum in the Execution Application, we do not find any Jurisdictional error in the directions issued by the Fora below, warranting our interference in Revisional Jurisdiction.  Having initially applied for an Agricultural connection as far back as in the year 1978, it was probably the fittest case where the concerned Deputy Commissioner or the District Collector, as the case may be, ought to have exercised the discretion vested in him to grant approval for

-4-

tubewell connection in favour of the Complainant even if it was assumed for the sake of argument that 2017 guidelines were applicable in the case of the Complainant.  We are convinced that on facts at hand, the Authorities, referred to in the said guidelines, had failed to exercise the discretion vested in them and were thus, deficient in their public service towards the Complainant.

        Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed in limine, with a direction to the Petitioner to deposit in the Consumer Legal Aid Account, maintained by the District Forum, a sum of ₹5,000/- within two weeks from today, for wasting valuable judicial time.