- (1.) THE instant petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution is directed against order dated 6-7-2006 (P-1), passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (for Public Utility Services), U. T. Chandigarh, whereby the application filed by Shri Raj Pal Singla-respondent No. 3, under Section 22-C (1) of the Legal Services authorities Act, 1987 (for brevity, 'the Act'), has been allowed with costs of Rs. 1,100/-for putting the applicant (respondent No. 3)to avoidable harassment and expense. The petitioner has also prayed for striking down and declaring the provisions of Section 22-C (8)of the Act as ultra vires, which empowers the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide a matter on merit, even if the parties do not reach a settlement/agreement.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Shri Raj pal Singla-respondent No. 3 obtained electricity connection from the petitioner for his house No. 403, Sector 44a, Chandigarh. On 2-9-2005, the Enforcement Staff of the electricity Department, U. T. Chandigarh, inspected the premises of respondent No. 3 and checked the accuracy of the electric meter. The same was found within permissible limit and the load was also being consumed within the sanctioned limit. During inspection, one of the Junior Engineers of the Enforcement Staff, inflicted a heavy jerk to the meter with the help of a wooden piece and the meter stopped running. Subsequently, the meter was replaced with new electronic meter. On 6-2-2006, respondent no. 3 received a show cause notice asking him to deposit Rs. 13. 046/- within two days, failing which the electricity connection was to be disconnected (P-2 ). Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 3 filed a complaint for deficiency of service, dated 14-2-2006, before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services)U. T. Chandigarh (P-3 ). The petitioner appeared before the Lok Adalat and contested the complaint taking the stand that on 2-9-2005, respondent No. 3 misbehaved, abused and snatched the records of the Enforcement Staff. In that regard, a letter was addressed to the SHO, Police Station Sector 34, chandigarh, for lodging FIR. It was further asserted that respondent No. 3, who is an employee of Punjab State Electricity Board, had been working on deputation as Assistant Executive Engineer in M and P sub-Division, Chandigarh. He was issued sealing plier No. G-UT-123. The meter bearing No. CHB-13090, in the premises in question was installed on 4-6-1989. At the time of checking, impression of 'g-UT-123' was found on the seal. It was urged before the lok Adalat that the said number could not have been used at the time of installation of the meter in 1989 and respondent No. 3, in fact, has misused his official position by tampering with the seal. Therefore, demand of Rs. 13,046/- has been raised. After adjudicating the controversy at length and summoning various records, the Lok Adalat passed an order dated 6-7-2006 (P-1), allowing the application filed by respondent no. 3, which is subject-matter of challenge in the instant petition.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no room to interfere in the impugned order. The Lok Adalat has passed a detailed reasoned order giving categoric findings against the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order shows that at no point of time the meter in question was found running slow or the seals were tampered with. The petitioner failed to controvert the claim of respondent No. 3 that the meter stopped running due to mischief of one of the Junior Engineer of Enforcement Staff, who inflicted a heavy jerk to the meter with the help of wooden piece. The Lok Adalat also recorded specific finding that the version of claimant-respondent No. 3 cannot be held to be an afterthought because he has added a note in his own hand on the checking report. The meter in question was also checked in the M and T Lab. The Lok Adalat called for the report of M and T Lab but the same was never produced by the petitioner before it. The Lok Adalat also called for the consumption data of respondent No. 3 for the period of one year prior to checking and for the subsequent period. It has found that there is normal variation within limits in the electricity consumption and there was no steep rise or fall so as to uphold the case of theft. This Court cannot go into the findings of fact in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We cannot re-appreciate evidence and record a finding different than the one recorded by the Permanent Lok Adalat as it is wholly impermissible.;