Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

RP/46/2022

Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)

Acts

ARTICLE 21 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
(Punjab). Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.4 Revision Petitions under Section 47(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter called as 'Act')

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (Revision Petns. 46–49 of 2022)

Factual and Procedural Background

This consolidated opinion deals with four Revision Petitions (Nos. 46 to 49 of 2022) filed under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, challenging interim orders dated 26.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tarn Taran. The petitioners are Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (PSPCL) through various officers; the respondents are individual complainants (Ramanjit Kaur, Rupinder Kaur, Sukhraj Kaur, and Hargurdeep Singh) and Jaswant Singh (the developer/colonizer) as Opposite Party No.4 in the underlying complaints.

In the illustrative matter (Revision Petition No.46 of 2022), respondent/complainant (Ramanjit Kaur) purchased a plot and raised construction but alleged that despite requests electricity connection was not provided. An application under Section 38(8) was made in the complaint seeking an interim direction for a domestic electricity connection. The District Commission allowed that application on 26.04.2022 and directed the petitioners/PSPCL to issue a domestic connection on an interim basis to the complainant, subject to payment of normal charges and completion of requisite formalities, stating the order would have no bearing on merits. The petitioners/PSPCL filed revision petitions challenging that interim order on the grounds summarized below.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the interim order dated 26.04.2022 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing the petitioners/PSPCL to issue domestic electricity connection on an interim basis should be set aside.
Whether the same relief (setting aside the interim order) should be granted in the related Revision Petitions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 of 2022, which involve the same legal and factual questions.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' (OPs') Arguments

The developer/promoter (Jaswant Singh, OP No.4) obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on 19.12.2016 but failed to develop the Local Distribution (LD) system and other requisite infrastructure in the colony, breaching contractual and regulatory obligations.
Due to the developer's failure to install the LD system and transformer of requisite capacity, PSPCL was unable to release electricity connections to residents of the colony, including the complainant.
Initially, some temporary connections were arranged on the basis of certain court orders, but increasing number of connections has strained the existing system; releasing more temporary connections without a proper LD system and transformer risks collapse of the system.
It is the contractual and legal obligation of the promoter/colonizer to provide basic amenities (roads, sewerage, electricity infrastructure) and to lay internal HT/LT cables and install LD systems and transformers as per load demand and approved layout plan; these obligations were not fulfilled.
The District Commission failed to consider the developer's non-compliance and the technical/operational risk to the distribution system when passing the interim order.

Respondent/Complainant's Arguments

Electricity connections have been released to a number of other persons in the colony who are similarly situated to the complainant; denying the complainant connection is therefore inconsistent.
The District Commission rightly granted interim relief because the complainant made out a prima facie case and electricity is an essential necessity (invoking Article 21); hence no interference with the District Commission's order was required.
The District Commission's order was based on the averments in the complaint and contained proper reasoning.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission considered the submissions of counsel for both sides, examined the interim order dated 26.04.2022 and the material on record (including photographs). The court's analysis proceeded in the following steps:

Recognition of the factual overlap: The court observed it was not disputed that several similarly situated persons in the same colony had been granted temporary electricity connections while the complainant had not.
Examination of petitioners' technical objections: The petitioners, and their technical officers (XEN and SDO present in court), explained that the developer failed to develop the Local Distribution (LD) system and install the transformer and that the infrastructure was inadequate to sustain additional connections without risk of collapse.
Assessment of District Commission's interim order: The Commission found that the District Commission had directed PSPCL to issue a domestic connection on an interim basis subject to charges and formalities, but had failed to consider the developer's non-performance and the technical/operational risk to the distribution system.
Weight to technical expertise: The court explicitly found force in the petitioners' and technical officers' arguments, noting their expertise in the field and concluding that the District Commission had not considered these aspects while passing the impugned interim order.
Conclusion on fault in interim order: Because the District Commission omitted consideration of the developer's failure to provide infrastructure and the technical risk of releasing further connections, the Commission concluded the interim order was liable to be set aside.
Remedial direction and timeline: Rather than leaving complainants remediless, the Commission ordered that the District Commission should decide the main complaint within two months from receipt of the certified copy of this order. It further directed that execution proceedings be kept pending until disposal of the complaint and provided a contingent remedy—if the complaint was not decided within two months, a temporary electricity connection must be released to the complainant within 10 days thereafter upon completion of requisite formalities, treating the complainant at par with others who had received temporary connections.
Application to related petitions: The court applied the same rationale and directions to Revision Petitions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 of 2022, allowing them in identical terms because they involved common questions of law and fact.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Commission allowed the Revision Petitions and set aside the interim order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tarn Taran, in respect of the matters before it. The same order was applied to Revision Petitions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 of 2022.

Implications:

Direct consequence for the parties: The District Commission is directed to decide the main complaints within two months from receipt of a certified copy of this order. Execution proceedings, if any, are to remain pending until disposal of the complaints.
Contingent relief for complainants: If the District Commission fails to decide the complaint within two months, the relevant PSPCL office must release a temporary electricity connection to the complainant within 10 days thereafter upon completion of formalities and by treating the complainant at par with others who have already been granted temporary connections.
Scope of decision: The order addresses the specific interim direction given by the District Commission and provides procedural and remedial directions; the opinion does not state that it establishes any broader precedent beyond the facts and directions stated. The court noted that the interim order would have had no bearing on merits but, on revision, found that the District Commission had overlooked relevant technical considerations which justified setting the interim order aside.

Disposition note: The four Revision Petitions (Nos. 46–49 of 2022) were allowed and pending applications, if any, were disposed of in consequence.

Bench: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary (President) and Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal (Member). Date of decision: 21 July 2022.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Ramanjit Kaur and another

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB,

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR -37 A, CHANDIGARH

1) Revision Petition No.46 of 2022

Date of Institution : 21.06.2022 Date of Decision : 21.07.2022

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub-Division Focal Point, Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran (Punjba), through its Sub-Divisional Officer.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub-Urban Division, Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran (Punjab), through its Senior XEN.

3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala (Punjab), through its Chairman.

……..Petitioners/Opposite Parties

Versus

1. Ramanjit Kaur, wife of Mehtab Singh, son of Milap Singh, resident of Ruriwala Road, Village Chohla Saahib, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran and having other residence at Baba Deep Singh Avenue (Master Colony, Muradpur), Goindwal By-pass, Tarn Taran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran (Punjab).

……Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Jaswant Singh, son of Nand Singh, resident of Dashmesh Colony, Amritsar Road, Opposite Old SSP Office, Tarn Taran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran (Punjab).

……Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.4

AND

2) Revision Petition No.47 of 2022

Date of Institution : 21.06.2022 Date of Decision : 21.07.2022

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub-Division Focal Point, Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran (Punjba), through its Sub-Divisional Officer.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub- Urban Division, Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran (Punjab), through its Senior XEN.

3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala (Punjab), through its Chairman.

……..Petitioners/Opposite Parties

Versus

1. Rupinder Kaur, wife of Kuldeep Singh, son of Milkha Singh, resident of Gali No.5, Master Colony, Tarn Taran and having other residence at Baba Deep Singh Avenue (Master Colony, Muradpur), Goindwal By-pass, Tarn Taran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran (Punjab). ……Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Jaswant Singh, son of Nand Singh, resident of Dashmesh Colony, Amritsar Road, Opposite Old SSP Office, Tarn Taran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran (Punjab).

……Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.4

3) Revision Petition No.48 of 2022

Date of Institution : 21.06.2022 Date of Decision : 21.07.2022

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub-Division Focal Point, Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran (Punjba), through its Sub-Divisional Officer.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub- Urban Division, Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran (Punjab), through its Senior XEN.

3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala (Punjab), through its Chairman.

……..Petitioners/Opposite Parties

Versus

1. Sukhraj Kaur, wife of Hartaj Singh, son of Balkirat Singh, resident of Village Koharaka, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran and having other residence at Baba Deep Singh Avenue (Master Colony, Muradpur), Goindwal By-pass, Tarn Taran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran (Punjab).

……Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Jaswant Singh, son of Nand Singh, resident of Dashmesh Colony, Amritsar Road, Opposite Old SSP Office, Tarn Taran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran (Punjab).

……Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.4

AND

4) Revision Petition No.49 of 2022

Date of Institution : 21.06.2022 Date of Decision : 21.07.2022

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub-Division Focal Point, Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran (Punjba), through its Sub-Divisional Officer.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub- Urban Division, Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran (Punjab), through its Senior XEN.

3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala (Punjab), through its Chairman.

……..Petitioners/Opposite Parties

Versus

1. Hargurdeep Singh, son of Lakhwinder Singh, resident of Master Colony, Tarn Taran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran and having other residence at Baba Deep Singh Avenue (Master Colony, Muradpur), Goindwal By-pass, Tarn Taran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran (Punjab).

……Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Jaswant Singh, son of Nand Singh, resident of Dashmesh Colony, Amritsar Road, Opposite Old SSP Office, Tarn Taran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran (Punjab).

……Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.4

Revision Petitions under Section 47(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against interim orders dated 26.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tarn Taran.

Quorum:-

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

Present:-

For the petitioners : Dr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate with Sh. Harpreet Singh, XEN and

Sh. Hardeep Singh, SDO

For respondent No.1 : Sh. Bikramjit Aroura, Advocate

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-

By this order of ours four Revision Petitions bearing No.46 0f 2022 to 49 of 2022 shall be disposed off as common questions of law and facts are involved. However, the facts are being extracted from Revision

Petition No.46 of 2022 titled as "Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & others Vs. Ramanjit Kaur & another".

2. Petitioners/opposite parties No.1-3 (in short the 'OPs') have approached this Commission by way of filing the present revision petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter called as 'Act') for setting aside the interim order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tarn Taran (hereinafter referred as "District Commission"), whereby the petitioners/OPs No.1-3 have been directed to issue domestic connection on interim basis to respondent No.1/complainant subject to payment of normal charges and after completing the requisite formalities for getting domestic connection till the next date of hearing.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the petitioners in the Revision Petition are that respondent No.1/complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission with the grievance that he purchased a plot of area measuring 7 Marla, 31 feet and raised construction but inspite of making several requests to the officials of the PSPCL still electricity connection was not provided. The complainant also moved an application under Section 38(8) in the main complaint to issue direction to the OPs to provide domestic electricity connection to her on interim basis during pendency of the complaint. Said application was allowed vide order dated 26.04.2022 and by holding that electricity was the dire necessity of life and OPs No.1-3 were directed to issue domestic connection on interim basis to the complainant without any delay but subject to payment of normal charges and on completing requisite formalities for getting domestic connection till the next date of hearing.

4. Aggrieved by said order dated 26.04.2022, the appellants/OPs No.1-3 have filed the present Revision Petition by raising a number of grounds stating therein that the Jaswant Singh Padda-OP No.4 (Developer) obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the petitioners on 19.12.2016, but still he failed to comply with the instructions of the NOC and has not developed the Local Distribution (LD) System in the said Colony. Due to this reason, the petitioners/OPs No.1-3 were unable to release the electricity connection to the residents of the said Colony including respondent No.1/complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially only on the basis of certain Court orders, the petitioners/OPs No.1-3 made arrangements only in some cases. Due to increase of number of connections the petitioners realized that the system installed would not sustain the increasing load without installation of transformer and LD system. The duty of erection and installment of LD system and transformer is of the developer Jaswant Singh. Learned counsel further submits that technically and practically if more temporary connections are released by the petitioners in absence of a proper and functional LD system and transformer the present system would be collapsed. It is the contractual and legal obligation of the OP No.4- promoter/colonizer to provide the basic amenities like roads, streets, sewerage, sanitation and electricity and to lay internal high tension/low tension (HT/LT) cables in the colony and also installing LD system and transformer of requisite capacity as per load demand of the colony and that too after obtaining approval of the layout plan from the petitioners/OPs No.1-3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in absence of basic infrastructure in the colony and on setting up LD system by the OP No.4-colonizer, the electricity connection cannot be released. The

Colonizer-OP No.4 has not provided such basic amenities till date and the District Commission has completely ignored this fact and OP No.4 has failed to discharge his contractual obligations under the Rules, while passing the impugned interim order dated 26.04.2022.

5. Sh. Bikramjit Aroura Advocate learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that electricity connections have been released to a number of persons/residents who are at par with respondent No.1/complainant. Mr. Aroura further submits that the District Commission Tarn Taran has rightly granted interim relief as the prima facie case was made out in favour of the complainant as the electricity is essential need for life and by considering it as basic necessity under Article 21 of Constitution of India and as such no interference is required as the order passed by the District Commission is based on proper reasoning and by considering the averments made in the complaint.

6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the petitioners and respondent No.1. We have also perused the interim order dated 26.04.2022 whereby the petitioners/OPs No.1-3 were directed to issue domestic connection on interim basis to the complainant subject to payment of normal charges and after completing requisite formalities.

7. After hearing the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of documents available on the file it is not in dispute that electricity connections have been provided to the other similarly situated persons in the same colony whereas no temporary/regular connection has been provided to the respondent No.1/complainant. In the interim order passed by the District Commission a direction was issued to

the petitioners/OPs No.1-3 to issue domestic connection on interim basis to the complainant subject to payment of normal charges and on completing the requisite formalities for domestic connection till the date of hearing in the case. It was also mentioned that the order passed on 26.04.2022 shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

8. It is also clear from the documents available on record including the photographs that certain persons who are similarly situated like the respondent/complainant have been provided/granted temporary electricity connection but still the case of respondent No.1/complainant has not been considered so far inspite of direction issued by the District Commission which is subject matter of challenge before this Commission in the Revision Petition filed by the petitioners.

9. It is the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners and version XEN and SDO of petitioners, who are present in the court, that it was the duty of the colonizer/developer to provide required infrastructure to supply the electricity and to provide electricity connection in the area and the developer has failed to provide that infrastructure. It has also been submitted that technically and practically if more temporary connections are released by the petitioners in absence of a proper and functional LD system and transformer, there are chances of collapsing of the present system.

10. We find force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as XEN and SDO who are present in court on behalf of the petitioners and being the expert persons in the field. The District Commission has not considered this aspects of the case while passing the impugned interim order and as such the same is liable to be set aside.

11. In view of above discussion, we allow the Revision Petition filed by the petitioners and set aside the interim order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the District Commission. However a direction is issued to the District Commission to decide the main complaint within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed by this Commission. The execution proceedings if any be kept pending till the disposal of the complaint. In case the complaint is not decided within the period of two months then the temporary electricity connection be released to the respondent No.1/complainant within a period of 10 days thereafter on completing the requisite formalities by considering the case of the respondent No.1/complainant at par with other persons who have released temporary connections.

Revision Petition No.47 of 2022

12. In view of order passed in Revision Petition No.46 of 2022 titled as "Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & others Vs. Ramanjit Kaur & another" the present Revision Petition is allowed in the same terms of order as passed in Revision Petition No.46 of 2022.

Revision Petition No.48 of 2022

13. In view of order passed in Revision Petition No.46 of 2022 titled as "Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & others Vs. Ramanjit Kaur & another" the present Revision Petition is allowed in the same terms of order as passed in Revision Petition No.46 of 2022.

Revision Petition No.49 of 2022

14. In view of order passed in Revision Petition No.46 of 2022 titled as "Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & others Vs. Ramanjit Kaur & another" the present Revision Petition is allowed in the same terms of order as passed in Revision Petition No.46 of 2022.

15. Since the above Revision Petitions are allowed accordingly the pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.

(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY)

PRESIDENT

(RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL)

MEMBER

July 21, 2022

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Ramanjit Kaur and another

Judgment Summary — State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (Revision Petns. 46–49 of 2022)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' (OPs') Arguments

Respondent/Complainant's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Ramanjit Kaur and another

Comments