# The Nagar Palika Parishad v. Shri Ganga Ram and others - **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 172 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2000-07-11 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-nagar-palika-parishad-v-shri-ganga-ram-and-others-39054 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000 172 Versus Bombay Co. ltd., AIR 1952 SC 366). Similarly, the debates in Parliament for a bill are not admissible for construction of the Act which is ultimately enacted (see Aswini Kumar gosh vs. State of madras, AIR 1950 SC 27). The Court has to be solely guided by the language used in the enactment and has to give plain meaning to the words used therein. Therefore, the contention based upon the fact that proper survey was not done or no demand has been raised by the 'Jat Sikh' for their inclusion in backward class is wholly misconceived and cannot be accepted. 11. Learned Advocate General has referred to s. Swvigaradoss Versus Zonal Manager, FCI, (1996) 3 SSC 100 and has urged on its basis that the Court has no power to alter the notification or Schedule. In our opinion, the authority cited has no application to the facts of the case By holding that a 'Jat Sikh' is also included in the entry 'Jat', we are not altering or modifying the said entry but are merely holding that it would include a person belonging to the said caste though professing Sikh faith. 12. In view of the discussion made above, we are clearly of the opinion that a 'Jat Sikh' being also a 'Jat' is fully covered by entry 78 of Schedule-I of 1994 Act and is a member of backward class. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be issued a certificate that he belongs to a backward class and is eligible to contest for the office of Adhyaksha, Zila Panchyat, Rampur, which has been reserved for a person belonging to the said community. 13. The writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed with costs. The impugned order dated July 11, 2000 passed by respondent no. 1 is quashed and the respondents are commanded by a writ of mandamus to issue a certificate to the petitioner that he belongs to backward class. By an interim order passed on July 31, 2000, it was directed that the nomination paper filed by the petitioner shall be accepted. The result of the election held for electing the Adhyaksha, Zila Panchyat, Rampur, Shall be declared in accordance with law treating the petitioner to be a member of backward class. 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' $8*867 '$7(' $//$+$%$' $8*867 %()25( %()25( 7+( +21 %/( %,12' .80$5 52< - 7+( +21 %/( %,12' .80$5 52< - 7+( +21 %/( 6. -$,1 - 7+( +21 %/( 6. -$,1 - &LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 7KH 1DJDU 3DOLND 3DULVKDG «3HWLWLRQHU 9HUVXV 6KUL *DQJD 5DP 6R *KXUGL /DO DQG RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV &RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU 6KUL 9LQRG 0LVUD &RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV 6& 6HFWLRQ G RI WKH &RQVXPHU 3URWHFWLRQ $FW WKH UHVSRQGHQW ZDV QRW D FRQVXPHU DV GHILQHG XQGHU VHFWLRQ ' RI WKH &RQVXPHU 3URWHFWLRQ $FW DQG DV VXFK WKH DSSHDO ILOHG E\ DSSHOODQW ZDV QRW PDLQWDLQDEOH 0RUHRYHU WKH VXSSO\ RI HOHFWULFLW\ ZKLFK ZDV VQRW ZLWKLQ WKH FRQWURO RU GRPDLQ RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU DQ DSSDUHQW MXULVGLFWLRQDO HUURU KDV EHHQ 3All] The Nagar Palika Parishad V. Shri Ganga Ram and others 173 FRPPLWWHG LQ SDVVLQJ WKH LPSXJQHG RUGHU +HOG ± 3DUD 5HVSRQGHQW 1R KDV FRPPLWWHG DQ DSSDUHQW MXULVGLFWLRQDO HUURU LQ DVVXPLQJ MXULVGLFWLRQ LQ LW DQG LQ SURFHHGLQJ WR SDVV WKH LPSXJQHG RUGHU By the Court 1. The Prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 2.2.1994 passed by District Forum Consumer protection, Shahjahanpur, Respondent No. 2 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience and trouble caused besides cost of Rs. 3,000/- of the proceeding to Respondent no. 1. (as contained in Annexure-3) in Complaint Case No. 834 of 1993 filed by Respondent no.1 Ganga ram against the petitioner for granting suitable compensation and refund of the water tax paid by him to the petitioner on the ground that his house has not been supplied regularly water by the petitioner despite several notices and who did not pay any heed to him. 2. We find that on 17.1.1995 the following order was passed by the Bench before which this writ petition was placed for consideration :- "Notices to respondents no. 1 and 2 to show cause why this petition be not admitted and disposed of at the admission stage. Counter affidavit may be filed within four weeks. List the writ petition no. 21.2.1995. Meanwhile, operation of the order contained in Annexure-3 shall remain suspended until further orders. Sd - U.P. Singh, J Sd - S.K. Phaujdar, J" 3. Sri Vinod Misra learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition, contended as follows:- (I) No counter affidavit having been filed by Respondent No. 1 the statement made in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that the petitioner has not sold the water nor has rendered any service to Respondent no. 1 against any consideration thereby he (Respondent No. 1) was not a 'consumer' as defined under section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, his complaint before Respondent no. 1 was not maintainable and Respondent No. 2 has committed an apparent Jurisdictional error in assuming Jurisdiction in it and in proceeding to pass the impugned order. (ii) Even assuming that the Respondent no. 2 had jurisdiction to pass the order impugned, the apparent fact that the supply of water being dependant upon the supply of electricity which was not within the control and or domain of the petitioner, as stated in paragraph II of the writ petition, again an apparent jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned order. 4. Having perused the provisions of the Act and taking into consideration non filing of any counter affidavit by the Respondent, we find that Respondent no. 1 was is not a "consumer" within the meaning of the Act and thereby Respondent no.2 lacked jurisdiction to entertain his complaint and pass the order impugned on merits. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, the complaint of Respondent no.1 dismissed and this writ petition allowed. However, in view of the fact that none has appeared on behalf of Respondents to contest this proceeding, we make no order as to cost. INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000 174 The office is directed to dispatch a copy of this order within two weeks to Respondent no.2. 6. The office is directed to dispatch a copy of this order within two weeks to Respondent no. 2. 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ - 7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ - &LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 5DMHQGUD 3UDVDG 7LZDUL DQG 2WKHUV «3HWLWLRQHUV 9HUVXV 6WDWH RI 83 2WKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV &RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU 6KUL 31 7ULSDWKL &RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV 6UL .6 .XVKZDKD 6WDQGLQJ &RXQVHO &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH 6XSHUDQQXDWLRQ $JH 7XEHZHOO RSHUDWRU ZRUNLQJ LQ SD\ VFDOH RI 5V ± DFFRUGLQJ WR *2 GDWHG UHDGZLWK )XQGDPHQWDO 5XOHV D ± 7XEH ZHOO RSHUDWRUV FRPHV LQ WKH FDWRU\ RI JURXS & 3RVW ± UHWLULQJ DW WKH DJH RI KHOG 3URSHU +HOG ± 3DUD 7KH OHDUQHG FRXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU SODFHG UHOLDQFH RQ D GHFLVLRQ RI WKLV &RXUW LQ 5DP 7HM 3DWKDN 9V 6WDWH RI 83 83/%(& DQG WKH MXGJHPHQW GDWHG LQ ZULW SHWLWLRQ QR /% 5DM .DUDQ