CWP No.16249 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16249 of 2009 Date of Decision: 9 - 12 - 2009 Union Territory of Chandigarh ....Petitioner v. Permanent Lok Adalat (For Public Utility Services) ....Respondents U.T. and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Union Territory of Chandigarh through its Executive Engineer, Electricity Operation Division No.2, Near Power House, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh has sought quashing of order dated 10.6.2009, Annexure P3. Impugned order, Annexure P3 was rendered by Permanent Lok Adalat (For Public Utility Services), Union Territory, Chandigarh in a dispute between Joginder Singh and others v. Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh and another. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present writ petition, it is essential to make reference to brief facts of the case. In the periphery of Chandigarh, certain illegal structures for residential and other purposes have come up and they are called as Slums of Chandigarh. The un-authorised occupants of the land have been issued notices by the Land Acquisition CWP No.16249 of 2009 [2] Collector, Union Territory, Chandigarh under Section 12(2) of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952. The Chandigarh Administration unable to evict the un-authorised residents and remove the slums, on humanitarian grounds provided water and electricity connections to such residents. To facilitate grant of temporary connections, a notification was issued on 18.4.2002. This notification was relied upon before the Permanent Lok Adalat as Annexure R1 and was called “Providing Temporary Electricity Connections to the residents of J.J. Clusters/Slum Dwellers/Un-authorised Colonies, residents outside Lal Dora”. This notification defined Leading Person as a Resident Welfare Association or an authorised Leading Person or a competent company or contractor. According to this notification, a Single Point delivery connection was to be allowed to the Leading Person with the approval of competent authority and the Leading Person was to be responsible for giving further service connection to the residents beyond Single Point Delivery connection. The Leading Person was authorised to collect the bills at the rates notified by the Chandigarh Administration. The scheme further envisaged that a common electricity meter will be installed and the consumption of electricity meter so installed shall be shared between the members constituting a Block as per actual consumption by each of the occupant as per the sub meters which were to be installed at the clusters. It seems and can be reasonably inferred that the Leading Person became a middle man between the end users and the Chandigarh Administration. Not only it led to the disputes, quarrels, law and order problem but also to exploitation of end users at the hands of the Leading CWP No.16249 of 2009 [3] Person. Dispute in each cluster and un-authorised colony caused various other problems also. Another issue which has emerged during operation of the scheme was failure of the Leading Person to deposit the huge amount gathered from the end users. Some times Leading Person misappropriated the amount and the end users were deprived of the electricity. Some times, it happened otherwise, end users were not paying the amount and the Leading Person was fastened with liability. The above-said inference has been drawn from the perusal of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat and the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner. Permanent Lok Adalat considered the entire gamut and concluded as under:- “.......Since the department agreed to give electricity to persons residing outside Lal Dora we find no good reason for not installing separate meters in respect of each such consumer. Such an arrangement would have taken care of the unnecessary bickering between the various residents in the block. We are thus of the view that the Notification No.G- 1/2002/2 dated 18th April 2002 deserves to be modified. Either the department should fix separate meters in these houses or in case it finds it difficult it should on its own recover the dues on account of electricity consumption as per reading of the sub meters. Of course the department will take all appropriate measures like putting seals on these sub meters or any other step that it may deem appropriate. In case additional expenses are to be incurred in providing separate wire/wires, the cost shall be borne by the residents who desire to have separate CWP No.16249 of 2009 [4] electricity connections/meters. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners will clear all the bills of consumption of electricity as on today before the aforesaid direction is complied with. Keeping in view the urgency of the matter, we direct the respondent – Electricity Department to give separate electricity connection to each one of the consumers in a Block or decide to recover the consumption charges from each of the occupants in a Block on its own. Direction be complied with without any further delay and preferably within a period of one month of passing of the order.” I have heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The Permanent Lok Adalat was well within its rights to invoke Section 22 C 8 of the Legal Services Authority Act to resolve the dispute, once for all and for all times to come. Clusters and the slums are densely populated. The order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat made better sense in the circumstances to resolve the un-ending dispute. Therefore, the argument raised by counsel for Union Territory that it was against policy decision by the Permanent Lok Adalat can be over- looked in the larger public interest. The policy envisaged had failed to ensure maximum good of the maximum. Therefore, it is neither pragmatic nor could be termed as utilitarian. Counsel has relied upon an order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2855 of 2007, `Union Territory, Chandigarh v. The PLA and others', decided on 4.5.2009 to contend that this Court approved alternative mode of supply of water to the residents of the village. A CWP No.16249 of 2009 [5] perusal of the judgment reveal that the observations made therein are not attracted in the present case. In Union Territory, Chandigarh v. The PLA and others's case (supra), the Court formulated the view that State is obligated to provide drinking water and modified the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat by observing as under:- “......State is obligated to provide drinking water to all the residents irrespective of the legality of the structures built up by them. Learned counsel for the petitioner was accordingly directed on 18.03.2009 to have instructions regarding some alternative mode that may be followed to supply water to the residents of village Khuda Jassu, like the private residents.” In the case relied upon by counsel for Union Territory, this Court had come to the rescue of the residents by holding that water is one of the essential need. Electricity like water is also required for better quality, for day to day living. Therefore, once the Chandigarh Administration itself thought necessary to provide electricity to the residents, then the same ought to be provided in the manner which is not only convenient but save the end users from multiple disputes. The order of the Permanent Lok Adalat is prompted by better sense to amicably resolve the disputes which continuously occur by going to the root of the dispute. It was to nip the evil in the bud. Therefore, no interference is warranted and hence the present writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) December 9th, 2009 JUDGE RC