For erstwhile electricity board,Feb has 31 days

This was one of the major grounds on which President of the Commission Justice S N Aggarwal and member Baldev Singh Sekhon established that the ‘checking report’ was forged,and penalised the board.

The case pertains to a complaint filed by Gajjan Singh,a resident of Sabrahn village in Amritsar district. Singh told the court that in 1990,he applied to the board for a 5 BHP (brake horse power) electric connection for installation of a tubewell in his field,and deposited Rs 120 as security. It took the board 11 years to issue a demand notice to Singh—in 2001.

As required by the board,Singh deposited Rs 15,240 for the purpose,and the test report was submitted too. However,the tubewell connection was not released.

Singh told the commission that when he went to the board”s office,a lineman Jagtar Singh met him and demanded Rs 7,000 for installing the connection. Singh reported the matter to Vigilance Bureau,and Jagtar was arrested red-handed.

When the tubewell connection was not released even after a long wait,Singh filed a case in the Amritsar Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The forum decided in Singh’s favour.

It directed the board to release the tubewell connection immediately,and also imposed costs of Rs 2,000. However,the board chose to appeal against the order in the Punjab Consumer Commission.

It claimed that checking was done on Singh’s premises in December 2004,and he was found guilty of electricity theft. In this light,he was imposed a fine of Rs 7,000 and his test report was failed.

However,the commission observed that the date on the checking report was February 31,which proved that it was forged.

The commission closely examined the whole sequence of events and concluded that the entire story given by the board was concocted. In this light,the commission dismissed the board’s appeal and directed it to release the tubewell connection immediately—21 years after Singh had applied for it.