A.EN., R.S.E.B. vs KISHORE CHAND

HEARD. On 15.2.1994 Kishore Chand respondent and his brother Lalu Ram had applied to the appellant to sanction an electric connection for agricultural purposes to them on their well situated in Khasra No. 1156. They both had jointly applied for sanction of the said connection. When their said application was still pending, the appellant appears to have floated a scheme wherein electric connection for agricultural purposes, to the applicants registered under such scheme, would be released on priority basis. On 18.9.1990 the respondent applied for providing an an electric connection for agricultural purposes to him. This application was registered at priority No. 175 and on 15.1.1991 an electric connection for agricultural purposes was released to the applicant. The earlier application which was moved by the respondent and his brother on 15.2.1984 had been registered at serial No. 144 and was kept pending even after providing an electric connection to the respondent and/or his brother on 15.1.1991.

VIDE his letter dated 31.12.1993 the concerned Jr. Engineer of the appellant required the respondent to inform him as to whether he still required an electric connection despite the fact that an electric connection on the well in Khasra No. 1156 (new No. 1861) had already been provided by the appellant. He was further informed that in case the respondent wanted his registration No. 144, made on 15.2.1984, to continue he should inform the appellant accordingly within 15 days of the receipt of the letter. The respondent informed the Jr. Engineer of keeping his registration alive and to provide a separate electric connection for agricultural purposes to him on his another well in the same field. Since such connection was not provided to him he filed the complaint before the Forum. The stand taken by the appellant before the Forum was that two connections cannot be sanctioned/provided by the appellant on one and the same well. The Forum appointed a Local Commissioner to verify as to whether there existed one well or two wells in Khasra No. 1156 (new No. 1861). The Commissioner reported on 12.10.1996 that there were two wells in the said Khasra number and that one electric connection for agricultural purposes had been provided on one of the two wells. The Forum, therefore, directed the appellant to provide an electric connection for agricultural purposes to the respondent on another well on the basis of his registration made in the year 1984. It may be mentioned that such registration had been made under the General Registration Scheme of the appellant.

Since the Local Commissioner had reported that there were two wells in the same field and the registration made by the appellant in the year 1984 had been sought by the respondent to be kept alive, the impugned order was quite reasonable and justified on the merits of the case.

IN the result, we find no force in this appeal and dismiss it accordingly. Appeal dismissed.