##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

202 CWP-2989-2016

Date of Decision: 22.05.2026

M/S GOYAL RICE MILL ...Petitioner

Vs.

LOK ADALAT & ORS. …Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Naveen Kashyap, Advocate

for the petitioner

Ms. Anupam Bhanot, Advocate

for respondents No.2 and 3

***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227

of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated

19.09.2015 whereby Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat (for short ‘PLA’) has

rejected its application filed under Section 22C of Legal Services

Authorities Act of 1987

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner

purchased a rice mill in public auction conducted by State Bank of Patiala

under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner was issued

sale certificate. The petitioner applied for electricity connection which

was granted by respondent. As per prescribed procedure, the petitioner

DEEPAK BISSYAN

2026.05.22 16:53

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment

CWP-2989-2016 -2-

was asked to deposit a sum of ₹8,46,800/- towards tentative cost of new

connection. The respondent prepared final cost of connection which was

found ₹48,510/-. The petitioner became entitled to refund of differential

amount i.e. ₹7,98,290/- (₹8,46,800 – ₹48,510). The cost of new

connection was very less because there was infrastructure already in

place. The previous owner of the rice mill was having electricity

connection and at the time of issuance of connection to previous owner,

the respondent has already set up transformer, wires and other ancillary

equipments. The respondent had to just restart the connection.

3. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that

there were outstanding dues against previous owner and respondent has

withheld amount deposited by petitioner on account of said dues.

4. Faced with this, learned counsel for petitioner submits that

petitioner was never confronted with outstanding dues of previous owner.

The respondent has raised a new plea at this stage.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The respondent has no authority to withhold any excess

amount which was recovered towards tentative cost for setting up of new

connection. The respondent is unable to dispute that cost of connection

was found ₹48,510/- whereas a sum of ₹8,46,800/- was got deposited

towards future cost of connection. The respondent is bound to refund

differential excess amount, accordingly, respondent is hereby directed to

refund ₹7,98,290/- within two months from today. The respondent, as

agreed by petitioner, shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. with effect

DEEPAK BISSYAN

2026.05.22 16:53

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment

CWP-2989-2016 -3-

from 20.04.2022 to the date of payment. The respondent, in accordance

with law, shall be at liberty to recover outstanding dues of previous

owner.

7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

May 22, 2026

Deepak DPA

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

DEEPAK BISSYAN

2026.05.22 16:53

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment