NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2039/2010

RANJIT SINGH (DECEASED) - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O., PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

MR. NIRAJ KUMAR MISHRA

14 Jun 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2039 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 09/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1309/2006 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. RANJIT SINGH (DECEASED)Through his Legal Heir & Son, Joga SIngh, S/o. Late Ranjit Singh, Village Kotli Sainian, Tehsil and District GurudaspurGurudaspurPunjab ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. S.D.O., PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDSub Division, Kahnuwan, Tehsil and District GurdaspurGurdaspurPunjab ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 14 Jun 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard the Counsel for the petitioner. The State Commission found that pursuant to the application filed by the complainant on 30.05.1988, tube well electric connection was given on 03.01.1994. It appears that subsequently, again a demand notice was issued by the opposite party pursuant to which the present petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.43,000/- on 01.01.1998 and another electric connection was released to him on 02.06.2004. Later on it came to the notice of the opposite party that the second electric connection had been issued to the complainant without even filing an application for connection. The State Commission has came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not be granted two tube well connections on the basis of one application. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed before me a notification under which another electric connection could be issued on priority under OYT Scheme. Learned Counsel for the petitioner candidly admits that the petitioner had not applied for any electric connection under OYT Scheme. In this view of the matter, I do not find that any case is made out for interference in the impugned order in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the C P Act, 1986, as I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to cost.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER