IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.333 of 2008 Date of decision : 10-01-2008 Union Territory Chandigarh and another. .........Petitioners Versus Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Union Territory Chandigarh and another .........Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Harpreet Singh Giani, Advocate S.S. SARON, J. (ORAL) This Writ Petition has been filed by Union Territory, Chandigarh through the Chief Engineer and the Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity (OP) Sub Division No.10, Sector 40, Chandigarh, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 06-11-2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Union Territory, Chandigarh (respondent No.1). Maya Devi (respondent No.2) filed an application under Section 22 C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 (`Act' for short) for settlement of her dispute with the Electricity Department. She inter-alia stated that the house where she is residing was in the name of her C.W.P. No.333 of 2008 -2- father-in-law and was owned by him. He died in the year 2000. Her husband died in the year 2005 leaving behind his two children and the respondent No.2. She lives with her children on the first floor of the building. Her brother-in-law and mother-in-law are staying on the ground floor. They had harassed her and pressurised her to vacate the building so that they could stay there. Respondent no.2 has also filed a civil suit in the Civil Court at Chandigarh and obtained an injunction in her favour. Her in- laws, however, did not deposit the electricity bill leading to disconnection of the electricity supply. Respondent no.2, therefore, approached the petitioners for installation of a separate meter in her name in respect of the portion in her occupation. The stand of the petitioners is that the deceased father-in-law of respondent No.2, namely, Umed Singh was in arrears of electricity dues amounting to Rs.12,080/-. Accordingly, the electricity connection was disconnected on 06-10-2007. It is also the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 is not the owner of the premises and so electricity cannot be supplied by a separate meter without submission of requisite security, A & A form, Indemnity bond and the payment of arrears. The Lok Adalat made efforts to compromise the matter and, ultimately, allowed the application of respondent No.2. It was inter alia observed that the mandate of Section 43 of the Electricity Act,2003 casts a duty upon the respondent (petitioners herein) to supply the energy to the applicant (respondent No.2) on completion of various formalities. Besides, the payment of Rs.12,080/- by respondent No.2 cannot be made a condition precedent for release of electricity connection to her. However, it C.W.P. No.333 of 2008 -3- was open for the department to recover the amount from the persons liable to pay it in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the order (Annexure P-1) passed by the Lok Adalat in terms of Section 22 C(1) of the Act, the petitiones would be debarred from recovering the dues in view of the provisions of Section 22C(2) of the Act. It is also submitted that the dispute is a composite dispute which also covers the payment of arrears, and, therefore, the jurisdiction of all Courts to recover the due amount would be barred in view of the aforenoticed statutory provisions. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 is not recorded as owner of the premises and, therefore, the connection cannot be released in her favour. Rule 3 of the Conditions of Supply of the Sales Manual and Conditions of Supply for Sale of Electric Energy to Consumers issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board (Sales Manual) (as applicable to Chandigarh) has been referred to in this regard. It is also stated that the Permanent Lok Adalat is a Court of equity rather than settling the disputes. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners. However, we find no merit in the same. Section 22C(2) of the Act reads as follows : “ After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute.” A perusal of the award dated 06-11-2007 (Annexure P-1) of the Permanent Lok Adalat would show that it has been specifically held that payment of Rs.12,080/- by the applicant cannot be made a condition C.W.P. No.333 of 2008 -4- precedent for release of connection to her. Besides, it has been left open for the department to recover that amount from the persons liable to pay the same in accordance with law. Therefore, the award itself gives liberty to the petitioners to recover the amount from the persons liable to pay the same in accordance with law. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the dispute between the parties is with regard to the non-supply of electricity to the consumer (respondent No.2) and it is not a composite dispute relating to the recovery of arrears as also with the supply of electricity as it is sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, the bar created by Section 22C(2) of the Act would, in our opinion, clearly be inapplicable. As regards the conditions for non supply of electricity, learned counsel has referred to provisions of paras 3.1.1 and 3.1.4 of the Conditions of supply which reads as under : “ 3.1.1 Indemnity Bond : The prospective consumer shall produce documentary evidence to show that he is the lawful owner or occupier of the premises wherein he wants the connection to be released. If he is a tenant or a lease holder and is unable to produce the consent of the owner/land lord for availing electric connection, he shall indemnify the Board in the prescribed form against any action brought by the owner/land lord against the Board for release of connection. 3.1.4. No outstanding : The applicant shall also give an undertaking that neither he nor any of his associates is involved in any misuse, malpractice or theft of electricity and that n amount billed to him or his associates or somebody else in respect of the said premises is outstanding. An applicant for an industrial connection will further undertake that no litigation of any sort for payment of dues on any account is going on in the court or in any other forum including the `Dispute Settlement and C.W.P. No.333 of 2008 -5- Reconciliation Committee'. The applicant shall ensure that the outstanding amount is paid by him. In the event of the final decision being in his favour, amount if any, becoming due to him as a result of the said decision, will be refunded to him or adjusted in his subsequent bill(s).” A perusal of Rule 3.1.1 shows that the prospective consumer shall produce documentary evidence to show that he is the lawful owner or occupier of the premises wherein the connection is to be released. Respondent no.2 has set up her claim to be an occupier of the first floor of the premises and she is also stated to have an order of injunction in her favour from the Court against her in-laws. Therefore, the contention that the connection can be released only to the lawful owner is clearly misconceived. The afore-noticed provisions specifically provides for release of connection to an occupier. Learned counsel for the petitioners has then referred to Memo No.G1/2001/293 dated 12-01-2001 to contend that there has been an amendment in PSEB Sales Instruction No.268 (Revised) upto 31.12.1991. In terms of the amended instructions, it is submitted that separate electric connections for each floor of the residential houses may be allowd in the name of owner but more than one connection at each floor is not to be allowed on any floor. The said memo dated 12-01-2001 is only a letter addressed from the Chief Engineer, U.T., Chandigarh to the Superintending Engineer, Electricity (OP) Circle, Chandigarh. In any case, it provides for providing separate electric connection for each floor of residential houses which may be allowed in the name of the owner. We are of the view that the instructions only provide for allowing the owner electricity connection but it does not debar the occupier to apply for a connection. In fact, the Permanent Lok Adalat referred to the provisions of Section 43 of the C.W.P. No.333 of 2008 -6- Electricity Act 2003 which provides that every distribution licencee shall on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises within one month after the receipt of application requiring such supply. Therefore, the word `occupier' is specifically mentioned in Section 43 and the instructions issued vide Memo dated 12-01-2001 cannot supersede the statutory provisions of Electricity Act,2003. Even otherwise, the Electricity Act enacted by the legislature is later in point of time to the Memo dated 12-01-2001. Therefore, we are of the view that the case set up by the petitioners relying on the memo dated 12-01-2001 is clearly misconceived and un-warranted. The contention as regards the award that has been passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat as a court of equity rather than the court of law is also baseless. The Permanent Lok Adalat has specifically referred to the provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003 and passed its award in the light of the said provision. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE 10-01-2008 gurpreet