Haryana

StateCommission

A/627/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAMESHWAR - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT DHEER

22 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.627 of 2015

Date of Institution:27.07.2015

Date of decision:22.01.2016

 

A.G.M. ‘OP’ Sub-Division, DHBVN-Loharu,Dist. Bhiwani, Haryana.

 

…Appellant

Versus

 

Rameshwar S/o Sh.Naurang Lal, r/o Village Bisalwas,Tehsil Loharu,Distt. Bhiwani, Haryana.

…Respondent

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Rohit Dheer, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                   None for the respondent.

                                      O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

            As per complainant, he applied for tubewell connection under A.P. Category vide application   bearing No.18680/AP dated 17.02.2011 and deposited a sum of Rs.23250/- with the  opposite parties (O.Ps.).  He completed all the formalities, but, O.Ps. failed to release the connection after lapse of more than two years.  O.P. issued notice dated 28.01.2014 vide  which it was directed to adopt guidelines for releasing the power connection under modified HVDS scheme as per sale circular D-10/2011. O.Ps. issued notice 28.01.2014 vide which his previous application was cancelled for non compliance of alleged notice. 

2.         It was alleged by O.Ps. that a new scheme for release of tube well electricity connection was introduced restraining new work order under old scheme.  The scheme of HVDS was reviewed by the State  Govt. The policy was to be implemented with immediate effect for all new tubewell connections uniformity.  The new work order would be issued under new scheme.

3.         After hearing both the parties, Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 20.02.2015 and ordered as under:-

“1.     To release the tubewell connection under A.P. category to the complainant on the basis of old sale circular bearing no. D-80/2001 as per terms of the policy.

2.      To pay Rs.2200/- as costs of litigation.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants-O.Ps. vehemently argued that as per sale circular No.D-12/2011 all the previous instructions stand superseded.  Now the new connections are to be released as per this circular.  So the demand was rightly raised from the complainant.

7.      These arguments are of no avail. As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that the complainant applied for connection on 17.02.2011 as per sale circular No.D-80/2001, which was prevalent at that time. He is bound by the instructions which were applicable at the time of application.  Subsequent circular dated 16.05.2011 is not applicable in this case.  It is well settled preposition of law that the executive instructions cannot be made applicable retrospectively.  They can be applicable from the date of the issuance.  It is only the legislature which can lay down that any law or instructions will be applicable retrospectively. In these circumstances the instructions dated 16.05.2011 are not applicable in this case and learned District forum rightly came to conclusion that the complainant is entitled for the connection as per sale circular No.D-80/2001. So these arguments are of no avail. The findings of learned district Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.1100/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

January 22nd, , 2016	Urvashi Agnihotri Member, Addl. Bench		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl. Bench
S.K