Kuldeep kumar kohli
Rz – 200 B, street number –
3, ram chowk,
sadh nagar part – I, palam
colony,
new delhi – 45
Telephone – 08860332404
19.08.2016
Chairman
Consumer
Grievances Redressal Forum,
Dakshin
Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam,
Vidyut
Sadan, Vidyut Nagar,
Hisar
– 125005, Haryana
cOMPLAINT REGARDING REFUSAL
TO RELEASE NEW ELECTRICITY CONNECTION TO SHRI KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI - APPLICATION NO 33690 DATED 02/09/2015.
LAST DATE OF HEARING 29.7.2016 AT 1130 HOURS
NEXT DATE OF HEARING 30.8.2016
Respected
Sir,
This
has reference to Memo No. 4027 dated 28.7.2016 submitted by SDO ÓP’S/Divn,
DHBVN, Badshahpur in reply to my complaint regarding non release of new
electricity connection in spite of my application pending for last 11 months
and not giving no reason for non-release
of connection.
A
copy of the memo is enclosed herewith for your ready reference together with
the enclosure No. HSPCB/GRS/2015/2443 dated 26.6.2015 from the office of the Haryana
State Pollution Control Board. (Annexure
1)
At the very outset I wish to state
that the electric connections are issued as per the guidelines laid down under
the Electricity Act 2003 and in case a connection has to be refused it has to
be refused as per the provisions laid down in the Electricity Act and the rules
framed thereunder specifying the reason and clause under which the application
is being rejected in case the application is in violation of any of the
provisions laid. In
the present case in spite of a period of 11 months having been lapsed I have
not been issued any communication neither approving my application or rejecting
the same and the reason for this could be that the Department has no reason to
reject my application.
The
above said memo from the SDO ÓP’S/Divn, DHBVN, Badshahpur states that a clarification was sought from the Regional
Office, Gurgaon South of Haryana State Pollution Control Board vide their letter
No. 3835 dated 23.6.2016 and Haryana State Pollution Control Board has vide
their letter No. 4027 dated 28.7.2016 advised as under:
1.
HPSCB have forwarded a copy of the Aravali notification dated 7.5.1992 and have
advised ensuring its implementation and
2.
HSPCB has also stated that their office letter No. HSPCB/GRS/2015/2443 dated
26.6.2015 addressed to The Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon holds good even today.
ARAVALI
NOTIFICATION NO. 319 (e) DATED 7.5.1992
I
would therefore first take up the issues of the Aravali notification and its
applicability on the place where the electricity connection has been sought
that is Farm No A 2, Ansals Aravali Retreat, Village Raisina, Tehsil Sohna,
District Gurgaon.
The entire area developed by Ansal Properties &
Infrastructure Ltd.is approximately 1200 Acres and this area has been divided
into approximately 600 farms of the size of one acre/ 2 acres leaving lot of
area for the roads , electricity infrastructure, club, lakes, nursery, school
and other recreational activities.
HSPCB had filed a case against Ansals Properties
& Infrastructure Ltd. and all its Director stating innumerable violations
of the Aravali
notification no. s.o. 319 (e)
dated 7.5.1992.
The said case was filed before the Special
Environment Court, Faridabad and was listed as HSPCB V/s Ansal Properties
& Infrastructure Ltd. and others.
The main issue to be decided was
whether Aravali notification No. S O
319 (e) dated 7.5.1992 is
applicable on the 1200 acres of land known as ansal aravali retreat or not.
It has been confirmed by the Special environment Court
in the matter of HSPCB V/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. and
others that:
1. The purchase of land of Raisina village by Ansals
in the year 1987-88 is not in dispute.
2. The nature of land in Jamabandi of 1987-88 is not
in dispute
3. The nature of land in the Jamabandi of 1985-86 is
not in dispute shown as Gair Mumkin Pahar
4. The change of Khasra girdawari of Rabi 1991 from
Gair Mumkin Pahar to Gair Mumkin Farm house is not in dispute
5. Its subsequent incorporation in the Jamabandi of
1990-1991 is also not in dispute
6. The issuance of Aravali Notification on 7.5.1992
and its applicability on the Gair Mumkin Pahar is also not in dispute
The Honourable Court further observed in para 19, 20,
21 and 22, of the judgement:
“I am of the considered opinion that to rebut the
claim of the complainant regarding development of Aravali Retreat in Raisina
Village after Aravali Notification, sufficient evidence has been brought upon
file by learned defence counsel. The reports of ld. DRO and Tehsildar themselves
admit the purchase of land by accused no. 1 in year 1987-88. Further both
these reports admit the development upon the spot. The only doubt casted by ld.
DRO is that such huge change could not be possible within 6 months and other
doubt casted by ld. Tehsildar is that there is no report entered by Patwari in
Rapat Rojnamcha Vakyati. The burden to prove that these documents had not
taken place before the issuance of Aravali Notification was upon complainant
but he did no discharge his burden. Perusal of report ld. DRO shows that
as per instruction no. 13 of land record manual nature of any land can be
changed if the nature of land is hanged, the changed nature can be incorporated
in Khasra girdawari and subsequently in Jamabandi after physical verification..
Ld. DRO has further opined that the change in the Khasra Girdawari of Rabi 1991
from Gair Mumkin Pahar to Gair Mumkin Farm House, Road etc. does not appear to
be done in previous dates as Patwari lodged various Rapats in year 1990-1991 and
it was endorsed by Halqa Girdawar. Thus this report also does not
disclose any wrongful act and does not help the complainant in establishing the
collusion between accused and revenue officials.
“Thus this report also does not disclose any
wrongful act and does not help the complainant in establishing the collusion
between accused and revenue officials.”
After going through the various documents and
reports by the Tehsildar which were relied upon by the learned defence counsel,
the Honourable Court observed at para 23:
“Thus both of the reports only indicate that proper
procedure was followed and neither of the authorities objected upon the change
in Khasra girdawari of Rabi 1991 and its incorporation into Jamabandi.”
Para 24 of the judgement further reads:
“Further it was incumbent upon the prosecution to
prove that these entries were falsely made but as already discussed above there
is no any document upon file which could establish that the present change in
Khasra girdawari and subsequently in Jamabandi was not as per law. As
such in the present case the jamabandi of 1990-1991 to Jamabandi of 2005 of
village Raisina of land in dispute clearly depict that the nature of land in
dispute has been shown as Gair Mumkin Farm House. It is settled law that
presumption of truth is attached with entries of Jamabandi. The Ld.
Counsel for the accused have been able to suggest that all the construction was
completed by them before the issuance of Aravali Notification and as such they
cannot be held liable for violation of the same. Here the entries of
Khasra girdawari of Haadi 1991 have been incorporated into the Jamabandi of
year 1990-1991. Entries of Jamabandi for year 1990-1991 of Aravali
Retreat Village Raisina show the nature of land as Gair Mumkin Farm House etc.
As already discussed above the complainant has been unable to prove any
collusion and forgery in preparation of Jamabandi for year 1991 and thus has
been unable to rebut the presumption. The language of Aravali
notification clearly speaks that it applies upon the land shown as Gair Mumkin
Pahar in the land records maintained by the State Government as on this
notification in relation to Gurgaon district of State of Haryana. As such
at that particular time the entries were in favour of accused no. 1 and thus
the present Aravali notification of 7.5.1992 does not apply on the Aravali
Retreat the land of accused no. 1.”
The Honourable court further observed at Para 25 as
under:
“Further even if, for the sake of arguments, it is
presumed that Aravali Notification is applicable on land in dispute than too
complainant has been miserably failed to prove upon file that those alleged
constructions were made after issuance of Aravali Notification. Except
oral evidence of complainant and copy of jamabandi here is no any evidence upon
the file which could support the version of the complainant. There is no
any report on behalf of Haryana State Pollution Control Board, nor any report
of building expert or any other official which could prove upon file that the development
has been made after 7.5.11992. The learned counsel for the complainant
has not been able to prove any irregularity in the change of Khasra girdawari
an jamabandi.”
The Honourable Court further ordered at para 7 as
under:
“The principles of criminal jurisprudence are very
clear that the prosecution side is expected to prove its case beyond a
reasonable shadow of doubt and not by a mere pre-ponderance of probabilities,
which also has not been done so in the present case. “
Copies of the judgements by the Environment Court,
Faridabad in respect of the following are enclosed herewith.
1. HSPCB V/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.
and others (Annexure - 2)
2. HSPCB V/s Sunil Kalra (Annexure 3)
3. HSPCB V/s Prateek Srivastava (Annexure
4)
4. HSPCB V/s Mrs. Raj R Gupta (Annexure
5)
5. HSPCB V/s Vijay Malik (Annexure 6)
6. HSPCB V/s Sanjay
Mittal
7. HSPCB V/s Jyotirmay
Daw
8. HSPCB V/s K K Nanda
9. HSPCB V/s Gulshan Rai
12. HSPCB V/s Shri Nirmal Jain
13. HSPCB V/S Shri Jeevan Mehar
15. HSPCB V/s Shri A.K Kalra
The above judgements are therefore clearly
indicative of the fact that the land in question is a Gairmumkin Farm land and that the notification of the
Government of India issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests SO No.
(19) Dated 7th May 1992 commonly known as Aravali Notification is
not applicable in respect of the farm houses sold by Ansal Group in village
Raisina, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon.
Needless to mention that the above judgements have
been made by the Honourable Court after going into details of each and every
issue taken up by Haryana State Pollution Control Board and the documentary
evidence provided in terms of the Revenue Records for the said farm houses.
Appeal before the Honourable High Court of Punjab
and Haryana, Chandigarh by Haryana State Pollution Control Board against three
of the plot owners who won the matter in the special environment court
Faridabad.
Three appeals were filed by M/s HDPCB before the
Honourable High Court of Punjab & Haryana against the following:
1. Mr. Sunil Kalra CRM A 299 MA 2014 (Annexure
- 7)
2. Mr. Prateek Srivastava CRMA298MA2014
3. Mr. Jyotirmay Daw CRM A 297 M2014
All the above three appeals were dismissed by the
Honourable High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide order dated 16.7.2015 (Annexure – 8)
LETTER
NO. HSPCB/GRS/2015/2443 DATED 26.6.2015 ADDRESSED TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
GURGAON.
I
would now take up the above letter NO. HSPCB/GRS/2015/2443 DATED 26.6.2015 and
the issues so raised in the said letter by the Regional office (South), Haryana
State Pollution Control Board, Gurgaon to the
Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon.
At
the very outset this letter is written by Regional office (South), Haryana
State Pollution Control Board, Gurgaon to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon with
copies to Chairman, Haryana State Pollution Control Board, Panchkula.
The copy of this has never been
marked to the DHBVN at all.
The
letter No HSPCB/GRS/2016 /3853 dated 24.6.2016 of Regional office (South),
Haryana State Pollution Control Board, Gurgaon does say that the request made
by this office vide letter No. NO. HSPCB/GRS/2015/2443 DATED 26.6.2015 holds
good even today. Unfortunately you would notice that the copy of this has never been marked to the DHBVN at all which means no
request has been made to DHBVN at all. Hence even if it holds good, it is
applicable to the offices to which it has been marked and not to DHBVN. Since
it is not applicable to DHBVN, hence this letter should not have anything to do
with my application to DHBVN for electricity connection.
I
would now like to take you through the different issues mentioned in the said letter
addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon with copies to Chairman, Haryana
State Pollution Control Board, Panchkula and not to DHBVN and the applicability
of the said letter in the present case.
Page No. one
of the said letter mentions about a team constituted by Deputy Commissioner to make a fresh survey of the Aravali Hills of
Village Raisina to identify fresh violation of Aravali Notification dated
7.5.1992 and mentions of that a fresh survey has been carried out some violations by some farm house owners have been
identified. It further states at Page
No. 2 that the team has procured documentary proof from the electricity
department of violators of Aravali notification. The SDM
South has directed to the DTP, DFO, Mining Department vide letter No. 303-305/MC dated 22.6.2015 to
take action against the violators of
Aravali Notification as per act/law of concerned department. This office has issued show cause notice to
the violators.
The
farm houses so mentioned in the list does not cover mine farm no A 2. In any case I must emphasise that the farm
houses at Ansals Aravali Retreat are not covered under the Aravali notification
No S O 319 (e) dated 7.5.1992 as has already decided by the Honourable
Special Environment Court,
Faridabad
Re
the letter of the Respected SDM South to the DTP, DFO, Mining Department vide
letter No. 303-305/MC dated 22.6.2015 to take action against the violators of
Aravali Notification as per act/law of concerned department, this para of the letter also has no
applicability in respect of my application to the Electricity Department as it
is applicable to the DTP, DFO and the Mining Department. The letter further directs
to take action against the violators of Aravali Notification as per the
act/law. As mentioned earlier, I must re-emphasise
that the farm houses at Ansals Aravali Retreat are not covered under the
Aravali notification No S O 319 (e)
dated 7.5.1992 as has already decided by the Honourable
Special Environment Court, Faridabad
and hence there is no violation and therefore no action against me as per the
act/law.
The
letter further describes a procedural matter and states that vide notification no
S.O. 1189 (E) dated 29.11.1999 the State Government shall
constitute a Monitoring Committee under the Chairmanship of the District
Collector concerned ( Gurgaon in Haryana and Alwar in Rajasthan) as given in
Schedule II annexed to this notification which shall inter alia monitor the
compliance of the conditions stipulated while according environmental clearance
by such State Governments and report to such State Government about the
violations if any, and action taken thereon.
These
are the provisions as laid down in the notification no S.O. 1189 (E)
dated 29.11.1999
which authorises different officers to take necessary action in cases where the
conditions of the approval granted for
an environmental clearance are not followed and the project proponent fails to
implement the conditions. This provision has again no applicability in my
matter as I have applied only for an electricity connection and not any
environment clearance.
The
letter further copies section 5 of the EP Act 1986 which authorises the Central
Government to issue directions in writing to any person and such person,
officer shall be bound to comply with such directions.
Now
in the last para, the Regional Officer, Gurgaon Region (South) is requesting
the Deputy Commissioner to direct
Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, Badshahpur for disconnection of
power supply and BDO Sohna for disconnection of Bore well in Aravali Retreat,
Raisina Gurgaon and other concerned departments to take action as per act/law
so that a reply may be filed in Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi
within time and next date of hearing.
Hence
it would be noted from the contents of the letter of No HSPCB/GRS/2015 /2443
dated 26.6.2015 of Regional office (South), Haryana State Pollution Control
Board, Gurgaon that this is a very general letter having:
1.
No applicability to my farm house rather the entire Ansals Aravali Retreat,
Village Raisina, Tehsil Sohna, which is not covered under the Aravali
notification
2. The Deputy Commissioner has been advised to
direct Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, Badshahpur for
disconnection of power supply and BDO Sohna for disconnection of Bore well in
Aravali Retreat, Raisina Gurgaon and other concerned departments to take action
as per act/law.
3.
No action was ever taken by the Deputy Commissioner as requested above
by the Regional office (South), Haryana State Pollution
Control Board, Gurgaon as the same would
not have been as per the law.
4. The Aravali notification was issued in 1992
and since then more than 250 connections have been given in Ansals Aravali
Retreat, Village Raisina, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon by the office of SDO ÓP’S/Divn, DHBVN, Badshahpur. Neither has
any connection been disconnected nor has any notice been issued to anyone ever
by the office of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, Badshahpur because
of the said letter as any such action would have been in violation of the
Act/Law and therefore the Deputy Commissioner did not take any action.
I
further wish to add that the farm houses were allotted in the year 1991 onwards
and since then more than 250 electricity
connections have been provided to the farm land owners and the revenue being
earned by the department is anything around 250 x Rs. 3000 equals Rs. 7.5
lakhs. Another 300 farm house owners
need electricity and the revenue being lost by the department is Rs. 2000 x 300 = Rs. 6 lakhs.
The
Regional Officer, HPSCB, Gurgaon Region (South) has requested the Respected
Deputy Commissioner in the letter No. NO. HSPCB/GRS/2015/2443 dated 26.6.2015, to direct Executive
Engineer, Electricity Department Badshahpur for disconnection of Power Supply
and BDO Sohna for the disconnection of Bore well in Aravali Retreat, Raisina, but
the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon has not
issued any instructions to SDO ÓP’S/Divn, DHBVN, Badshahpur for even one connection as it
would have been against the act/law to issue any such instructions to disconnect the
electricity connection as the said letter clearly states “ to take action as per act/law” and
therefore no connection has been disconnected. Hence if you cannot disconnect an existing
electricity connection which is specifically mentioned in the said letter, how
can a connection be refused to be granted based on this letter which makes no
such mention and is not even addressed to the Electricity Department?
Respected Sir, I also wish to state
that no stay on grant of electricity connection has ever been granted by any
court on any matter till now based on the petitions filed by the Haryana State
Pollution Control Board and hence it would be very unjustified not to grant
an electricity connection when the application has been made as per the
act/rules.
In view of above I would request
you to kindly direct SDO ÓP’S/Divn, DHBVN, Badshahpur to
grant me and all the applicants the
electricity connection as per my request
NO 33690 DATED 02/09/2015 which would be pending for almost one full year on
the date of hearing ie. 31.8.2016
Thanking you
Yours faithfully
KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI
No comments:
Post a Comment