JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, a consumer of Second respondent-Jodhpur Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short 'JWNL'), has filed this Writ Petition for ventilating his limited grievance against the impugned order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Sirohi. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner applied for agricultural electricity connection and the said connection was issued in his name. It appears that while not treating the electricity connection of the petitioner for general category, respondent-JWNL issued bill for an excess amount of Rs. 10,660/- by treating the connection to be of nursery category. Being aggrieved by the said electricity bill the petitioner approached the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, 'The Act'), and prayed for refund of excess amount or adjust the same in the ensuing bill to be issued by the JWNL. The said excess amount was received from the petitioner pursuant to earlier bills. The Application under Section 22-C, of the Act, laid by the petitioner, is replied by respondent-JWNL with specific averments that the excess amount paid by petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10,710/- can be refunded by the department. 3. The learned Permanent Lok Adalat, while deciding the matter, recorded its categorical finding that the electricity connection issued in the name of petitioner is of general category and the same cannot be treated as a connection of nursery category. The recitals of the order read as under:- " 1-12-2008 izkFkhZ e; odhy mifLFkr foi{kh dh vksj ls Jh _f"k ekFkqj Ad. The recitals of the order read as under:- " 1-12-2008 izkFkhZ e; odhy mifLFkr foi{kh dh vksj ls Jh _f"k ekFkqj Ad. mifLFkr ,oa Jh f'kodqekj pkS/kjh ARO jsonj mifLFkrA izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku gS fd mlus fo|qr dusD'ku lkekU; Js.kh esa fy;k Fkk ijUrq ulZjh Js.kh dk fcy olwy fd;k tk jgk gSA foi{kh dk ;g dFku gS fd ogka mUgksaus lkekU; Js.kh ds dusD'ku fn, gq, ugha gSa ,oa lHkh ulZjh Js.kh ds dusD'ku gSa ijUrq izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius iM+ksfl;ksa euq dych o vxokjke ds fcy is'k fd;s gSa] ftUgsa lkekU; Js.kh ds dusD'ku fn;s gq, gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa foi{kh dk ;g dFku gS fd ogka lkekU; Js.kh ds dusD'ku ugha gSa] =qfViw.kZ izrhr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ dk fnukad 14-6-2008 dks lwpuk nh xbZ gS mlesa Hkh 24 ?k.Vs vkSj 6 ?k.Vs fctyh nh tk jgh gS] mlds lacaf/kr lwph is'k gqbZ gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ls vf/kd olwyh tks dh tk jgh gS og =qfViw.kZ gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ dk dusD'ku lkekU; Js.kh dk ekuk tk, ysfdu lkFk gh mlh vuqlkj jkf'k olwy dh tkosA foi{kh ;g tkfgj djrs gSa ;fn izkFkhZ lkekU; Js.kh dk fu;fer dusD'ku pkgrk gS rks mlds fy, og fu;ekuqlkj vkosnu dj izkIr dj ldrk gSA i=koyh QSly 'kqekj gksdj nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA " 4. However, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has declined the prayer of the petitioner to refund the excess amount paid by him, or for making adjustment of the same in the ensuing bill to be issued by respondent-JWNL by clarifying the said order on 29.6.2009. Order reads as under:- " 29-6-2009 odhy i{kdkjku mifLFkrA izkFkhZ }kjk ;g tkfgj fd;k x;k fd fnukad 1-12-2008 ds iwoZ dh tks jkf'k mlls vf/kd olwy dh tk jgh gS og lek;ksftr ugha dh tk jgh gSA foi{kh dk ;g dFku gS fd fnukad 1-12-2008 dks U;k;ky; ds vkns'k esa dusD'ku dks lkekU; Js.kh dk ekuk x;kA vr% mlds iwoZ dh jkf'k lek;ksftr ugha gks ldrhA iwoZ ds vkns'k dks ns[kus ls Li"V gS fd fnukad 1-12-2008 ls lkekU; Js.kh dk dusD'ku ekuk x;kA vr% mlds iwoZ dh jkf'k lek;ksftr gksus ;ksX; ugha gS vr% izkFkhZ dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gksus ls vuqoku [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA fely QSly 'kqekj gksdj nkf[ky nQ~rj jgsA " 5. Precisely, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat for declining the said prayer of the petitioner has opined that since it has not decided the matter with retrospective effect so as to extend the benefit of refund of amount to the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the specific stand of the respondent in return, in my opinion, the approach of the learned Permanent Lok Adalat appears to be infirm which cannot be sustained. 7. Under Section 22 of the Act, Permanent Lok Adalat is having all the powers to settle the dispute perpetually between parties for doing substantial justice In the matter. Therefore, once the Permanent Lok Adalat has concluded that the electricity connection issued in the name of petitioner was of general category, obviously, it was not desirable for the petitioner to pay the bills which were raised by respondent-JWNL by treating the connection to be of nursery category. It is also not worthy that respondent-JWNL in its return has also conceded to refund the amount received from the petitioner in excess. 8. In this view of the matter, the Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat is modified to the extent that amount paid by the petitioner is excess be either refunded to him, or the same be adjusted by the department.Petition allowed. *******