IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3508 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 11, 2008 Bimla Devi ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) U.T. Chandigarh and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Bahadur Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition is directed against order dated 3.7.2007 (P-3), passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Lok Adalat’). It has been prayed that order be set aside to the extent a pre-condition of jointly depositing previous arrears of Rs. 24,121/- has been imposed for taking separate water connection in name of the petitioner in the premises occupied by her. On account of litigation between the petitioner and one Daya Ram, who is her landlord, a dispute has arisen. The petitioner alongwith a co-applicant filed an application before the Lok Adalat claiming that their landlord has deliberately got the water connection disconnected and it was asserted that the water meter installed C.W.P. No. 3508 of 2008 became dead. A defective water meter was installed and the bill was prepared on average basis by making calculation on the higher side. The petitioner is stated to have applied to the U.T. Administration for installation of water meter but without any result. Consequently, a prayer was made by her to the Lok Adalat seeking direction to restore/re-connect water supply to her portion of the building and also to install a separate meter in her name alongwith another applicant. The Lok Adalat after considering the matter in detail came to the conclusion that though the services of water supply were hired by the landlord Shri Daya Ram but the petitioner along with another were the beneficiary as they availed the water supply with the permission of their landlord Shri Daya Ram. Therefore, the petitioner alongwith her co-applicant were held to be actual consumer. It was further held that they could not avoid the liability to pay arrears. The view of the Lok Adalat is discernible from the last few paras of its order, which reads thus:- “ Such being the situation, the applicants being the actual consumers cannot avoid the liability to pay the arrears. Though the department has the remedy to go before the Civil Court for the recovery of the outstanding dues but that is not the only remedy. In the matter before us it is the applicants who have come forward to claim an equitable relief to draw water. One who seeks equity, must do equity. This maximum (maxim?) applies in the present case with full force because it is applicants who had been using water supply from the (sic) since 2 C.W.P. No. 3508 of 2008 disrupted water connection. The applicants have used the water and they should pay for it both under the considerations of law and equity. As regards the dispute between the landlord and the tenants regarding the apportionment of charges and other matters, this Lok Adalat set up for Public Utility Services has no jurisdiction to go into that aspect. Any other passed in this dispute, would have no bearing on the ‘inter se’ rights of the tenants and the land, which can be determined by the normal court in accordance with law. On behalf of the applicants it is pointed out that the average charged (charges?) for the period of 30.9.2005 to 31.3.2007 has been calculated at the rate of 196 Kl per bill and it is on the higher side. On our asking SDO Sh. Harish Saini carried out the calculation and agreed that the average consumption comes to 192 kl per bill and he undertakes to correct the charges accordingly. In the light of the discussion made above and having regard to the principles of justice, equity and fair play we dispose of this application on the following lines:- Direction is issued to the respondent No. 1 that the applicants be released separate water connections in their names subject to following terms and conditions:- 3 C.W.P. No. 3508 of 2008 1. The applicants would jointly pay the previous arrears of Rs. 24121. 2. The applicants would separate the plumbing of their respective portions. 3. The applicants would pay other necessary charges, like security deposit for the release of connection in their respective names. 4. The amount paid by the applicants if found to be in excess on recalculation of the average, shall be refunded/adjusted in the future bills of the applicants in equal shares.” After hearing learned counsel and perusing the detailed order passed by the Lok Adalat, we are of the considered view that it does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Lok Adalat has recorded a categorical finding with regard to payment of arrears in lieu of water charges, which were payable by the petitioner and her co-applicant. The petitioner along with her co-applicant has been asked to deposit the amount, if she is willing for installation of a separate water meter. She does not wish to deposit any money and prayer has been made that pre-condition of making payment of arrears should be set aside. We are afraid that such a prayer cannot be accepted. If the water supply is essential service, it cannot be made available free to the petitioner by ignoring the payment of arrears. There is, thus, no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 4 C.W.P. No. 3508 of 2008 (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) March 11, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 5