AMIT KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ORS.
LAWS(P&H)-2016-2-42
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on February 12,2016

Amit Kumar And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed praying for directions to quash the award dated 23.07.2015 (Annexure P -16) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Narnaul whereby the petition/ application of the petitioners challenging the disconnection of the electricity supply to the shop and seeking directions for restoration of the same was dismissed.
(2.) It is averred in present petition that the father of petitioner No. 1, namely Suresh Kumar was a tenant in the premises of Vishwakarma Samaj Bhavan @ 400/ - per month in the name and style of M/s. Sheonarain Sanjay Kumar and initial receipt (Annexure P -1) for six months from 24.10.1988 to 30.4.1989 was issued by Vishwakarma Samaj Bhavan. The firm M/s. Sheonarain Sanjay Kumar was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act. The firm was also registered under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act (for short 'the Act') w.e.f. 01.04.2003 (Annexure P -4). After the death of the father of petitioner No. 1 in November 2005, he became the proprietor of M/s. Sheonarain Sanjay Kumar and he has been in continuous occupation of the premises. He has been regularly paying electricity charges. In proof of his occupation of the premises, petitioner No. 1 has annexed the income tax returns for the assessment years 2011 -12 to 2015 -16. He has also annexed the copy of the licence issued by the Market Committee, Kanina to M/s. Sheonarain Sanjay Kumar renewed upto 31.03.2016.
(3.) On the application of petitioner No. 1, an electric connection bearing No. KC -21 -1448 was installed in the premises in 2014. But later a complaint dated 08.06.2015 was moved by Vishwakarma Samaj Bhavan to respondent No. 1, alleging that petitioner No. 1 had got electric connection by submitting forged ownership papers which related to some other property. On the said complaint, a notice dated 18.6.2015 (Annexure P -11) was served on petitioner No. 1 calling upon him to give proof of his legal possession within two days. Petitioner submitted his reply stating that he had already submitted attested copy of rent receipt, copy of licence duly attested by Market Committee, Kanina and site plan at the time of grant of connection and that he was again submitting the said documents. Being dissatisfied with the reply and for his failure to submit the required documents in proof of ownership and legal possession vide order dated 29.06.2015 (Annexure P -13), the electricity supply to the premises was disconnected.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.