Heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondent on admission. Factual backgrounds are that petitioner moved respondent-authority on 31.08.1987 for provision of 5 H.P. electric connection for his tube-well. On demand being raised for requisite fee and estimated cost prepared by respondent-authority, a sum of Rs.645/- was deposited by petitioner on 06.10.1987. It was alleged that respondent-Corporation after fixing three cement poles at the site, failed to provide electricity connection even after lapse of about 14 years, which necessitated petitioner to file a complaint before District Forum. Complaint was resisted by respondent-Corporation placing reliance on affidavit of Executive Engineer wherein it is stated that though electricity connection was provided, materials were removed by petitioner. Recovery proceedings too were initiated against petitioner for realization of dues for Rs.1,43,906/-. District Forum, however, on consideration of pleadings of parties, while accepting claim of petitioner, granted desired relief. When matter was carried in appeal by respondent-Corporation, State Commission having taken notice of Sub Divisional Officer’s report, reversed the finding and unsuited petitioner. It is against aforesaid finding of State Commission that petitioner is in revision. True, it is that report of Sub-Divisional Officer, which is referred to in order of State Commission, is not with the record of State Commission, which was summoned. It is brought to my notice by learned counsel for petitioner that State Commission having lost sight of affidavit of Executive Engineer, reversed well reasoned order of District Forum. Though rival contentions were raised by both counsels, I am not oblivious of the fact that there was no evidence about respondent-Corporation ever raising electricity arrears against petitioner for Rs.1,43,906/- and recovery proceeding being initiated against petitioner during pendency of proceeding before District Forum. It is however surprising to find that even though electricity connection was not provided to petitioner, for 14 long years, he would not take recourse to public authority for redressal of his grievance and even if this be accepted as a valuable claim of petitioner, the claim is much belated and time barred. Even though petitioner has a good case, but for belated filing of complaint, no relief can be granted to petitioner and in this view of the matter, I find that revision deserves to be dismissed, which is accordingly dismissed, but with no order as to cost.
......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER | |
