The court upheld the rejection of the application by the Permanent Lok Adalat based on lack of evidence and failure to establish the defect in the meter.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 21.09.2021 (Annex.11), whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat, Churu has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

2. The petitioner filed application, inter-alia, aggrieved against the electricity consumption bill issued to it. Allegations were made that Assistant Engineer, Mr. Hanuman Singh Jahkar, who commutes on the National Highway and was told to pay the toll tax, did not want to pay and, therefore, on account of said, the demand has been raised against the petitioner. Submissions were made that on receiving the demand, the petitioner approached the Superintending Engineer, who has refused to correct the bill and, therefore, the respondents be directed to prepare a fresh bill and seek the same from the petitioner. Allegations were also made that the petitioner has been singled out for the treatment, whereas no demand has been raised qua similarly placed persons.

3. Reply to application was filed by the respondents while denying all the averments contained therein and it was submitted that deficiency was found in recording of the unit consumed by the petitioner in the CMRI machine, and that the similar nature inspections were held at all 20 Toll Booths, wherein where ever there were deficiency, bills were raised. Allegation against Mr. Hanuman Singh Jakhar, was specifically denied.

4. After hearing the parties, the Permanent Lok Adalat by its order impugned came to the following conclusion:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Permanent Lok Adalat without considering the plea raised by the petitioner regarding nature of the defect in the meter, has decided the application, which was not justified. Submissions have been made that even if the allegations were made against Mr. Hanuman Singh Jakhar, the same do not prevent the Permanent Lok Adalat from examining the aspect on merit and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

7. A bare look at the application filed by the petitioner reveals that the entire basis of the application was purported illegality committed on the part of Mr. Hanuman Singh Jakhar. The petitioner, has not even indicated in the application as to what according it was the defect in the meter. Further allegations were made of singling out the petitioner; whereas the Permanent Lok Adalat, based on the material before it, specifically came to the conclusion that not only qua the petitioner, qua several of similarly placed consumers, the bills were raised after inspection and that said Mr. Hanuman Singh Jakhar was not impleaded as party to the application, against whom the allegations of personal nature were made and consequently rejected the application.

8. No fault can be found in the determination made by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The writ petition has no substance, the same is therefore, dismissed.