##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:-13.08.2025 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others ...Petitioners Versus Som Nath and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Mr. R.S.Longia, Advocate and Mr. Subhash Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Sonia G.Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)

1. Assailing award dated 28.02.2022, Annexure P5, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services (For brevity ‘PLA, PUS’), Panchkula, petitioners have filed the instant petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid award.

2. In nutshell, facts leading to the filing of the petition are that respondent No.1, who had installed the tubewell in his agricultural fields and was granted an electricity connection by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) for agricultural purpose. On 30.07.2018, officials of UHBVNL inspected the premises and found that the tubewell was being used for commercial purpose and water was being sold in water tankers. A memo dated 01.08.2018, Annexure P2, was issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘2003 Act’) provisionally assessing that an amount of Rs.10,52,258/- was due from respondent No.1 on account of unauthorized use of electricity under the Act. Respondent No.1 filed a civil suit, which was withdrawn on technical grounds with liberty to file a fresh one before approaching PLA, PUS by filing an application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’). As the dispute could not be settled, PLA, PUS accepted the application vide impugned award, Annexure P5, and reduced the demand to Rs.5,24,795/-.

3. Twofold arguments have been raised by counsel for the petitioners. Firstly, he has argued that the proceedings under the 1987 Act were not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 22-C thereof. Secondly, he has argued that demand has been raised under Section 126 of the 2003 Act and respondent No.1 has a remedy of filing an appeal.

4. Per contra, counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that the petitioners consented to the jurisdiction of PLA, PUS and they cannot turn around and question the award. She states that pursuant to the award, respondent No.1 has deposited an amount of Rs.5,24,795/- and continues to draw electricity for the tubewell connection. By referring to the impugned award, she has contended that PLA, PUS reduced the demanded amount to half after coming to the conclusion that the first respondent is a senior citizen and has a small holding, which is his sole source of livelihood.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the paper-

book as well as the documents relied upon by the parties.

6. Provisions of 1987 Act have been subject matter of interpretation in a number of judgments. In Syndicate Bank Versus Permanent Lok Adalat and others (CWP-26019-2017), decided on 11.03.2024, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court interpreted Section 22-C of the 1987 Act and held as under:-

“12. It is evident from a perusal of the above said statutory provision that the prohibition against entertaining an application by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) is attracted once a person has already approached any other ‘Court’ for seeking redressal of the said grievance. The stage for approaching Permanent Lok Adalat prescribed in the statute is to approach the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) before a dispute is brought before any Court. Hence, Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) is prohibited from entertaining a dispute after initiation of proceedings before any other Court as defined under Section 2 (aaa). The stage for entertaining the application is not qualified or related to the final outcome of the proceedings that were initiated before approaching the Permanent Lok Adalat. The prescription of a stage is a con