1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (104)

CWP-649-2021 Date of decision:- 17.09.2025 Aman Malik ... Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. And others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.

None for respondent Nos. 5 to 9.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL

1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India inter-alia for quashing impugned orders dated 20.11.2020 and 27.11.2020, Annexures P-4 and P-5, respectively, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Rohtak (for short, “Lok Adalat”).

2. The primary ground of challenge to the orders passed by the Lok Adalat is that the petitioner was neither served nor was he heard before the said orders were passed. Counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to impugned order, Annexure P-4, to fortify his submission. He contends that the petitioner was never afforded an opportunity to present his case before the Lok Adalat and the impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained.

2-

3. Upon notice, writ petition has been contested by UHBVNL- respondents No. 1 to 4 by filing a response wherein it has been stated that the name on the electric meter has been changed to Sh. Dariya Singh in compliance of order, Annexure P-4. It has been submitted that the dispute before the Lok Adalat pertains to an electric connection which was running in the name of Sh. Dariya Singh and after his death, petitioner applied for the change of name vide A & A application, Annexure R1/1. It is submitted that his application was accepted and the name was changed to that of the petitioner. The said respondents have further stated that the name of the electric meter stands reverted to that of to the name of Sh. Dariya Singh in compliance of the impugned orders passed by the Lok Adalat. Respondent Nos. 5 to 9, who were the applicants before the Lok Adalat have, however, chosen not to respond to the writ petition, despite being served.

4. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. A perusal of order dated 20.11.2020, Annexure P-4, shows that the petitioner, who was respondent No.5 before the Lok Adalat, was not served. This order clearly reflects that the summons issued to the petitioner had been received back unserved. Despite this fact, vide impugned order, Annexure P-4, the Lok Adalat directed UHBVNL to restore the electricity connection to its original status and directed the SDO to submit a report. On 27.11.2020 when impugned order, Annexure P-5 was passed, the SDO appearing on behalf of UHBVNL, stated that respondent Nos. 5 to 9 have paid the outstanding electricity bills and in compliance of the orders, connection has been restored to the name of Sh.

3-

Dariya Singh. On the basis of this statement, Lok Adalat disposed of the petition. It is, therefore, evident that the order had been passed at the back of the petitioner, who remained unserved. Impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained on this sole ground, and the matter deserves to be remitted to the Lok Adalat for adjudication afresh, in accordance with law.

5. For the aforegoing reasons, petition is allowed. Impugned orders, Annexures P-4 and P-5 are set aside. Matter is remanded to the Lok Adalat for further proceedings in accordance with procedure prescribed under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

6. Parties are directed to appear before the Lok Adalat, Rohtak on

14.10.2025 at 10:00 AM.

(SUVIR SEHGAL)

JUDGE

17.09.2025 pry