SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT
Gist of the complaint case is that on 16.03.2017 the complainant made an application before the OP Electricity Board praying for a new domestic connection in his premises vide application No. 2002435176 Reference ID No. 202297204 dated 14.06.2017.The staff of the OP made inquiry of the residential house of the complainant and beiong satisfied sent quotation for new connection. As per said quotation the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 200/- for connectin charge and Rs. 247/-as security deposit . The complainant deposited all the relevant papers including certificate from Gram Panchayet. but till date the OP Department did not supply electricity in the house of the complainant in spite of repeated request and reminders from his end. Lastly on 16.10.2017 the complainant a written application for the connection but the Office staff of the OP most rowdily said that there was an existing connection in the premises of the complainant and so, without court’s order no new connection would be given.
Hence, the instant case with the prayers for a direction upon the Ops to pay her Rs. 6894/- with 10 % interest from 30.08.2017 and other reliefs.
The OP, WBSEDCL Prarappaur CCC contested the case by filing written version and denied all the material allegations of the complaint petition. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the case on various grounds including maintainability point for non-joinder of necessary parties.
The OP admits that the complainant deposited the Rs. 447/-for new connection in his premises. The staff of the OP engaged contractor for effecting the service connection on 20.06.2017 The said contractor had been to install the connection but were restrained by some people namely Mrityunjay Mishra and others. As per report of the said contractor the complainant did not provide proper way leave clearance at the time of effecting connection and as such the OP asked for way leave by letter dated 11.07.2017 vide Memo No 98 but without providing the way leave the complainant sent a letter requesting service connection . The OP again appointed the said contractor for executing the service connection but at that time too they were shown by the said Mrityunjay Misra and others, order of MP Case No. 77 of 2017 U/Sec 144 Cr PC. passed by the Ld Sub-divisional Magistrate, 2nd court, Tamluk. Thereafter the OP informed the matter to the complainant by letter dated 23.10. 2017 vide memo. No. PTP/1140 and again asked the complainant for producing way leave clearance for effecting the service connection but the complainant did not file the same. So the service connection was kept in abeyance.
Point to be considered in this case is whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by the complainant.
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.
We have carefully perused the complaint, the written version affidavit in-chief of the complainant and its questionnaires and reply fled by the parties and all the documents filed by both the parties and heard the submission of the ld advocate for the complainant. Considered.
Admittedly the petitioner deposited the quotation money for getting the electric connection from the OP and the OP appointed agency for effecting the service connection and they proceeded for effecting the service connection but failed due to severe resistance put forward by some people on the strength of an order of MP Case U/Sec 144 Cr P C. As per report of the said contractor the complainant did not provide proper way leave clearance at the time of effecting connection and as such the OP asked for way leave by letter dated 11.07.2017 vide Memo No 98 but without providing the way leave the complainant sent a letter requesting service connection . The OP again appointed the said contractor for executing the service connection but at that time too they were shown by the said Mrityunjay Misra and others, order of MP Case No. 77 of 2017 U/Sec 144 Cr PC. passed by the Ld Sub-divisional Magistrate, 2nd court, Tamluk. Thereafter the OP informed the matter to the complainant by letter dated 23.10. 2017 vide memo. No. PTP/1140 and again asked the complainant for producing way leave clearance for effecting the service connection but the complainant did not file the same. So the service connection could not be effected.
OP put questions to the complainant and the complainant answered that he filed way leave clearance to the OP at the time of applying for electric connection. For the question of the OP that did the complainant received any letter from the OP vide Memo. No. 987 dated 23.10.17 and Memo No. 1140 dated 23.10.2017 and the complainant was also asked as to how many times the OP took attempt to provide electric connection and the complainant answered ‘No’.
The OP produced one copy of order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the ld. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Tamluk U/Sec 144(2) Cr PC in MP Case No. 77 of 2017. It is settled law that the force of order U/Sec 144 Cr PC runs only for sixty days and hence, in the present case this order of Ld. Sub-divisional Magistrate has no farce as it appears from the written version that the OP engaged the Contractor for effecting the connection for the first time on 20.06.2017.
The copy of letter written on behalf of the OP addressing the complainant dated 18.07-2017 has been filed by the OP. According to the Ld. Advocate for the complainant there is no such sentence in said letter showing any demand of the OP for way leave clearance from the complainant but it has been stated that due to certain discrepancy it has not been possible for providing connection in the premises of the complainant. Besides that some copy of order dated 30.05.12 has been filed by the OP.
After careful scrutiny of the record we find that the complainant has applied all the procedure of law in applying before the OP for electric connection in his premises and as per quotation issued by the OP he deposited Rs 447/-. But it appears that the OP did not co-operative with the complainant. As a result the OP‘s claim that the complainant has not filed any way leave clearance finds no support.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the OP should provide electric connection in the premises of the complainant, whether the complainant produces any further way leave or not. AS a result the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That CC/38 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.
The OP WBSEDCL Pratappur Group Electric Supply is directed to install electric connection in the premises of the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order and in doing so, they are at liberty to take police help from the local PS if any sort of resistance is raised from any corner.
The complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution if the order is not complied within due time as above.
However, considering the merit of the case, no order as to compensation or litigation cost is passed.
Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.
