Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kabul Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board And ... on 17 November, 2009
Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 64, 2010 (3) AKAR (NOC) 254 (P&H) 2010 AIHC NOC 642, 2010 AIHC NOC 642, 2010 AIHC NOC 642 2010 (3) AKAR (NOC) 254 (P&H), 2010 (3) AKAR (NOC) 254 (P&H)
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
CWP No.17189 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C. W. P. No. 17189 of 2008
Date of Decision: 17 - 11 - 2009
Kabul Singh ....Petitioner
v.
Punjab State Electricity Board and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.H.S.Grewal, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner seek a writ in the nature of mandamus praying that respondent-Punjab State Electricity Board be directed to install the tube- well connections in the specified khasra numbers which are in possession of the petitioner.
Case of the petitioner is that he along with respondent No.4 and other co-sharers, is owner of 128 Kanals 12 Marlas of land. Tube-wells of the petitioner and respondent No.4 are existing in their separate portions of the land and those are being run on diesel. Petitioner had applied for electricity connection of tube-well. When his turn matured, he received a CWP No.17189 of 2008 [2] notice requiring that he should deposit the necessary no objection certificate from other co-sharers. At that time, his co-sharer Jatinder Kaur approached the civil court and sought ad-interim injunction against petitioner and the Electricity Board that tube-well connections cannot be installed in favour of the petitioner in the khasra numbers where petitioner has sought the electricity connections. Respondent No.4 is wife of Mohan Singh, who is brother of petitioner's father.
Counsel for the petitioner state that prayer for ad-interim injunction was finally determined by the civil Court and stay sought by respondent No.4 was declined and the civil court has observed as under:-
"Since both plaintiff and Petitioner are co-sharers in the suit property, in case any of the party is able to alienate more than their share or to change the nature of the joint land, then other party will suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in any manner and it will also lead to the multiplicity of the litigation which in my view can be avoided. As such, plaintiff and Petitioner are restrained from alienating specific portion more than their share and also from changing the nature of the joint land illegally and forcibly except in due course of law. So far as the releasing of electric connection is concerned, this part of the stay application is declined. PSEB authorities are at liberty to issue the electric connection to the Petitioner under their rules. Stay already granted stands modified accordingly. This order of mine shall have no bearings on the merits of the case at the time of final disposal."
Counsel has further submitted that petitioner had furnished the indemnity CWP No.17189 of 2008 [3] bonds as required by the Electricity Board.
Counsel for the Electricity Board has submitted that electricity connections cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner until the co-sharers give no objection.
This submission made by counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted. As is evident, petitioner is in litigation with his co-sharers. Petitioner has furnished the indemnity bonds. The Electricity Board may call upon the petitioner to secure their interest that no harm will be done to electricity wires for installing the tube-well connections and in case any damage is caused, the petitioner will compensate the Electricity Board. Petitioner may also assure the Electricity Board that all charges shall paid to the Electricity Board. Once this assurance is given to the satisfaction of the Electricity Board, there will be no obstacle in grant of electricity connections and the tube-well connections shall be installed within two months. With these observations, the present petition is disposed of.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 17, 2009. JUDGE RC