RAMAKANTA MOHAPATRA vs EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPALITY, JEYPORE

COMPLAINANT is appellant whose case is that the Executive Officer, Jeypore Municipality is not taking steps for replacing the bulbs in the street lights of the area of which the complainant is a resident and for construction of road and drainage. Besides, water supply is not provided in the area.

THE case stated by opposite-party is that service of electric poles providing light points, drainage, roads and water supply are being given regularly. Drainage system is worked out in a phased manner. It is stated that lights are replaced by Orissa State Electricity Board with the supply of necessary materials. So the Executive Engineer of the Board is responsible for supply of electric light. It is stated that provision has been made to make the road pucca by end of October. Besides there is a plan and programme to provide street road to Paik sahi. A school has been constructed by Municipality to give education facilities to children of the area. To eradicate water logging, culverts are constructed on the main road. It is stated that payment of tax or fee to a local authority will not legally constitute payment of consideration for specific service. Complainant has filed the receipts in respect of payment of holding tax, latrine tax and drainage tax. A letter to Executive Officer has also been filed by the complainant about the difficulties as indicated in the complaint. A letter had also been issued to the Director, Municipal Administration, in this regard. Some letters with plan have been filed by the Executive Engineer with reference to letter of the District Forum relating to inspection.

On perusal of these documents, the District Forum held that necessary development works are being taken by the Municipality and tax paid to Municipality does not mean that individual will get the benefit for which the tax is paid. In that view of the matter, the complaint was dismissed.

AT the time of hearing of the appeal there was no appearance for either party. On perusal of the records, we are satisfied that the District Forum has not considered the plaint in its right perspective. Complainant has not made the allegation against the Municipality. It has made allegation in respect of the negligence of the Executive Officer of the Municipality. Executive Officer is paid to render the service to the residents of the Municipality including the complainant. He is to execute the programme of the Municipality. For executing this programme, Executive Officer is paid. Therefore, the complainant is a beneficiary to the service rendered by the Executive Officer. If the Executive Officer would have stated that Municipality has resolved not to replace the fused bulbs, he would have been helpless in the matter. Similarly, in case the Executive Officer would have asserted that Municipality has decided not to construct the drains or road, the question would have been different. Plea of the Executive Officer is that the work is being done. When a rate payer of the Municipality like complainant approaches the Municipality alleging that the programme of the Municipality is not being executed, Executive Officer should have given a reply to the complainant. Absence of any reply to the application of the complainant who is a beneficiary of the service rendered by the Executive Officer, it is a deficiency in service. Executive Officer ought to have indicated in detail how the programme of the Municipality is being executed and what steps are being taken by him periodically in the matter. There is no reply to that effect. Even while stating that on materials being supplied, the Board is to provide light, there is no assertion that the materials have been supplied to the Board. We take a serious view of the matter. However, the Consumer Protection Act having been newly enforced and the same not having been appreciated by the Opposite party-Executive Officer, we are inclined to give him a chance to give clear reply to the assertion of the complainant in respect of lighting, drainage, road and supply of drinking water to the street of the complainant. The Executive Officer should personally look into the grievance by filing an affidavit before the District Forum in this regard failing which the District Forum would draw inference against the Executive Officer and deal with the complaint in accordance with law. District Forum has committed an error of flaw being of the opinion that the allegation is against the Municipality. We make it clear that the complaint is not against he Municipality but against the Executive Officer.

WITH the aforesaid observations, we set aside he order and remand the complaint to the District Forum for giving an opportunity to the opposite-party is indicated above and dispose of the same in accordance with law on the materials available. Appeal allowed.