1.      The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 28.3.2014 in appeal No.1633 of 2009 of the respondent/complainant for modification in the order dated 4.11.2009 of the District Forum on his complaint No.343 dated 1.7.2009. 

2.      Admitted facts of the case are that the complainant is an agriculturist and is an ex-servicemen and, was entitle for appling for tube-well connection under ex-servicemen quota or chairman priority quota scheme.  He first applied under ex-servicemen quota in 2006 and when no connection was given under that quota, he subsequently applied in chairman priority quota in January, 2009.  The petitioner did not give him any tube-well connection under its scheme of

-2-

ex-servicemen quota or chairman quota.  Aggrieved, he filed the complaint before the District Forum.  The respondent/complainant gave up his claim of priority under ex-servicemen quota because he was entitled for one tube-well connection only and, therefore, he preferred that his application for sanction of tube-well connection under chairman quota be considered and he be given the tube-well.  Based on these statement of the complainant, District Forum issued following directions :

          “For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are hereby directed to release the tubewell connection to the complainant under the Chairman quota schem as per his turn on his fulfilling the formalities, if any.  His claim to get the connection under the ex-serviceman quota stands rejected as per the statement made by him.  Parties are left to bear their own costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.”

3.      Subsequently, the complainant learned that under chairman quota scheme, he was required to pay expenses towards installation of transformer, electric poles, lay cables from nearest point to the place of installation of tube-well and other charges while all these charges were to be borne by his department if the connection be given to him under ex-servicemen quota.  In view of this, he preferred an appeal before the State Commission for modification of the order of the District Forum and prayed that the petitioner be directed to sanction him the tube-well under ex-servicemen quota.  During the pendency of the appeal, he made a

-3-

statement that he was giving up his preferences under chairman priority quota and he be considered for allotment of the tube-well under ex-servicemen category/quota because he was entitled to claim preference under one category alone.  Based on this statement of the complainant/petitioner, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and issued the following directions :

“para 10.           It has not been denied by the counsel for the appellant that both the categories under which he has applied are priority categories, therefore, during the life time, the complainant was entitled to one connection during his life time.  Certainly, in case he has applied for two connections on priority basis, he is not entitled for both the connections.  The learned District Forum has allowed him priority connection in Chairman’s Personal Quota whereas in the appeal, the counsel for the appellant has made a statement that he be given tubewell connection from Ex-servicemen Quota and abandoned his claim for Chairman’s Priority Quota.  In case the connection has not been released to the appellant/complainant under Chairman’s Priority Quota then the complainant/appellant be released the connection under the priority quota of Ex-servicemen.”

  “para 11.           In view of the above discussion, the appeal so filed by the appellant is allowed with modification that in case the complainant has not been released the connection under Chairman’s Priority Quota then the claim of the complainant with regard to that quota be considered as abandoned and he be released connection under Ex-Servicemen’s Priority Quota.  In case the connection has already been released to the complainant under priority of Chairman’s Priority Quota then this appeal be considered to have been dismissed with no order as to costs.”

4.      The opposite party i.e. the one who have to provide the tube-well connection to the complainant, aggrieved by this direction has challenged the order before this Commission on the ground that since once the petitioner/complainant had given up his claim under ex-

-4-

servicemen quota scheme, he cannot change his stand and pray for preference under another quota and, therefore, the order was perverse.

5.      I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  This Commission is aghast to notice that the complainant applied for a connection for tube-well for ploughing his land way back in the year 2006 under ex-servicemen quota and the petitioner kept sitting at his file for long years and did not take any decision on it.  It forced the complainant to apply for tube-well connection under another preference category i.e. chairman priority quota.  Even no decision was taken by the petitioner on his second application for allotment of one tube-well for his field.  The petitioner did not take any decision on his request to allot tube-well connection either in ex-servicemen quota or in chairman priority quota.  Instead it has contested the complaint vehemently and despite the direction of the District Forum did not allot any tube-well connection to the complainant/respondent.  It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that they already issued connection under the chairman quota on 09.12.2009 bearing A/c No.AP07/949 with Service Connection Order (SCO) No.67/81165 and has relied on annexure 45 of the petition.  This document is copy of an excel sheet maintained by the petitioner in his office to keep the record of various applications.  I have

-5-

perused the document.   The learned counsel has failed to point out from this document, that the allotment of the connection under Chairman quota in favour of the complainant had been done on 09.12.2009.  It is submitted that the name of the complainant appeared at Sl. No.3.  However, against the name of the petitioner no date of allotment of tube-well on 09.12.2009 is found mentioned.  No letter showing allotment of the tube-well connection has been placed on record by the petitioner.  The petitioner has therefore failed to prima-facia show that they had allotted any tube-well connection to the complainant under said quota.  Moreover, the State Commission in its order has clearly held that the complainant would be issued the tube-well connection under ex-servicemen quota, if no sanction of quota under chairman quota scheme had been done. 

6.      I find no perversity or illegality in the impugned order. The present revision petition is devoid of any merit.  When State Commission in the impugned order has clearly held that the allotment of tube-well in ex-servicemen quota be done of allotment had not been already done in other quota, challenging the said order on the very ground that since allotment had been already done under other quota, the State Commission could not have issued directions for allotment under ex-

-6-

servicemen quota are baseless and amounts to misuse of power of revision.

7.      The present revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.30,000/- which shall be paid to the complainant by way of demand draft within four weeks.