JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 7.5.2007 (P-3) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Union Territory, Chandigarh (for brevity ‘the Lok Adalat’) directing the Petitioner-Board to release the electricity connection to respondent No. 2 on depositing security amount and other charges by ignoring the failure to produce ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Deputy Commissioner, U.T., Chandigarh, which is required to be issued under the Punjab New Capital Periphery Control Act, 1952 (for brevity ‘the Periphery Act’)- The aforementioned Certificate has been required as per the instructions dated 26.08.2003 (P-4) issued by the Land Acquisition Officer.
2. Brief facts of the case are that consumer-respondent No. 2 is the owner of a piece of land situated within Lal Dora of village Dhanas. He purchased the aforementioned land by a registered sale deed dated 6.1.2005. There is some construction raised on the plot. Admittedly consumer-respondent No. 2 is running a gift shop and has applied to the petitioner- board for release of electricity connection. The Petitioner-Board did not release the electricity connection which resulted in filing of an application under Section 22(C)(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The only stand taken by the respondent before the Lok Adalat was that the No Objection Certificate from the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh has not been produced and, therefore, electricity connection could not be released. It was represented by the Petitioner-Board that in accordance with two letters dated 26.8.2003 and 9.3.2004, No Objection Certificate is required to be produced by the consumer-respondent No. 2. Having failed to arrive at a settlement, the Lok Adalat proceeded to decide the dispute on merit, under Section 22(C)(8) of the Act. On the issue whether consumer-respondent No. 2 was required to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Land Acquisition Officer, the Tribunal observed as under:
The crucial point in this dispute is whether the applicant is required to obtain NOC from the LAO for the release of electricity connection. In this context the electricity supply is governed by the Electricity Act 2003 and Section 43 of this Act casts a duty upon the supplier to give supply of electricity to the premises of the applicant, be either the owner or the occupier, within one month of the receipt of the application asking for such supply. Significantly, the provisions of Electricity Act 2003 no where lay down a obligation on the applicant, to obtain NOC from the LAO for getting the electricity supply. That being so, the demand of NOC from the LAO by the respondent is absolutely unwarranted. It is simply uncalled for. The perusal of the letters dated 26.8.2003 and 9.3.2004 clearly indicate that even in spite of the instructions by the LAO, the Engineering Department had been releasing electricity/ water connection to the occupants of the premises in the periphery controlled area. It is for this reason that these instructions were repeatedly issued because these were being observed in breach. These are executive instructions and have no force of law. Nothing is indicated about the provision of law empowering the LAO to issue those.
2.1 The Lok Adalat also took notice of the contention raised by the petitioner-board based on the provisions of the Periphery Act and went on to observe that in case the consumer-respondent No. 2 has violated any of those restrictions, the competent authority under the Periphery Act could proceed against the consumer-respondent No. 2 in accordance with law and that the issuance of directions for release of electricity connection in favour of the consumer-respondent No. 2 was not to be an impediment in the way of a competent authority to proceed against the consumer-respondent No. 2 in accordance with the Periphery Act. It is further observed that consumer-respondent No. 2 had purchased the said land with construction thereon by a registered sale deed dated 6.1.2005 and once a sale deed has been duly registered by an officer subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner, the Lok Adalat felt that there was no justification for refusing the release of electricity connection by the Electricity Department to the consumer-respondent No. 2 without No Objection Certificate especially when the area fell within the abadi deh.
3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Lok Adalat is unassailable. While approving the approach adopted by the Lok Adalat that the executive instructions issued by the Land Acquisition Officer lacks any legal force, we are of the view that there is ample support available to the order of the Lok Adalat to adjudicate the issue as per the provisions of Section 22(C)(8) of the Act. The argument that such an adjudication cannot be held or contentious matter involving legal issues, should not be decided by the Lok Adalat, has failed to impress us. Firstly the provisions of Section 22(C)(8) of the Act has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 543 of 2002 (S.N. Pandey v. Union of India and Anr.) decided on 28 10.2002, secondly the issue raised in the present case was not of such a nature that it was required to be settled in a regular trial before a Civil Court. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is dismissed.