Gurdaspur, August 13
As many as seven inmates of the local Central Jail were injured in a clash inside the jail premises on the night of August 11.

Taking a serious view of this incident, Jail Superintendent Surinder Singh Saini has recommended registration of criminal cases against those, who were involved in the clash and violation of discipline of the jail.

He had written a letter to SHO of city police station to take appropriate action in this connection.

Saini, after getting information that one group led by Amit Kumar Sharma, an inmate of the jail, had attacked another inmate Ramesh Singh without any provocation, intervened into the matter and brought the situation under control immediately.

Amit and his associates sustained injuries when other inmates came forward to save Ramesh Singh from the attack.

Amit and his three associates, identified as Pawan, Nikka and Lakhan, were admitted to Civil Hospital. Ramesh Singh, Napinder Singh and Bhagwant Singh suffered minor injuries and got treatment in the jail itself.

Information gathered by The Tribune revealed that Amit, who had several criminal cases against him, was in the habit of entering into quarrel with other inmates of the jail.

A few months ago, he was shifted to Pathankot jail after various complaints were received against him in connection with causing hurt to other inmates.

From the Pathankot jail, Amit had been shifted to Jalandhar Central Jail following similar complaints.

Superintendent Saini said no one would be allowed to create any disorder and indiscipline in the jail.

Nawanshahr, August 13
Setting aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nawanshahr, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, has ordered the Chairman of the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB), Patiala, the Senior Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Garhshanker, SDO J.S. Thakur of Operation Subdivision 2, Balachaur, and JE-I Surinder Kumar of Operation Subdivision 2, Balachaur, to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs 25,000 on account of mental agony, litigation expenses and in lieu of interest to complainant Gian Chand of Thopia village in the district within 30 days.

The amount of compensation would be recovered from the salary of the officials who were at fault.

In his complaint, Gian Chand had stated that he had applied for a deep tubewell connection for agriculture purposes on May 9, 2001, and deposited Rs 3,520.

In October 2001, JE-I Surinder Kumar visited the site and Senior Executive Engineer (Operation) sanctioned the necessary estimate for the installation of the tubewell.

A demand notice (5305 dated November 21, 2001) was issued and Rs 49,280 along with the test report was deposited with the PSEB accordingly.

But the connection was not released. Gian Chand alleged that the SDO and the JE-1 had demanded Rs 10,000 from him as illegal gratification.

The complainant pleaded that as per PSEB norms, connection was to be released within three months from the date of issuance of the demand notice, but in vain.

PSEB officials did not release the connection till filing of the complaint on the pretext that a ban had been imposed by the PSEB on the release of new connections.

The complainant pleaded that he had to spend Rs 3 lakh on depositing fee with the PSEB and installation of machinery and other equipment.

As the connection was delayed for about 16 months, he could not cultivate his land and had suffered a huge loss. Hence, he should be paid a compensation amounting to Rs. 3.20 lakh.

However, the district forum dismissed his complaint. Then, Gian Chand filed a petition before the State Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission against the orders of the forum.

The commission reached the conclusion that the ban on releasing new connections was issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer on October 25, 2001, and the demand notice was issued to the complainant on November 21, 2001.

When a ban was imposed by the Deputy Chief Engineer, then by the PSEB officials issued the demand notice to Gian Chand.

Moreover, the Deputy Chief Engineer had no power for impose a ban on the release of tubewell connections.

As the demand notice was issued to the complainant, which was duly complied by him, hence he was entitled for the release of connection.