Disposed

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Bar Association, Ludhiana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2012CR/2978/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged orders ensuring uninterrupted power supply to Ludhiana Judicial Courts. The Court held no interference with the supply mandate but directed the petitioner and State to agree on implementation modalities regarding load requirements.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is disposed of. Petitioner and State directed to hold a joint meeting to settle modalities for implementing the interim order regarding uninterrupted power supply.

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Bar… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C. R. No. 2978 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 2978 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision : February 08, 2012

¶6

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited .... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

District Bar Association, Ludhiana and another .... Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶10

¶11

Present : Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Sonu Chahal, Senior DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶15

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (successor-in-interest of defendant no.1 – Punjab State Electricity Board) has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 30.08.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana and judgment dated 16.12.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana thereby allowing application of respondent no.1plaintiff – District Bar Association, Ludhiana for interim injunction restraining the defendants from imposing any power cuts in electricity

¶16

C. R. No. 2978 of 2011

¶17

¶18

supply to Judicial Courts Complex, Ludhiana from 09:00 A.M. to 05:30 P.M., till disposal of the suit.

¶19

Although State of Punjab is not party to this litigation, Law Officer of the State was associated vide order dated 09.12.2011 because counsel for the petitioner-Corporation stated that for implementing the impugned orders, separate independent Feeder has to be provided, for which State Government has to apply, although temporary arrangement had been made through additional supply line for implementing the impugned orders.

¶20

As per Status Report submitted on behalf of State of Punjab, application was moved to petitioner-Corporation for framing estimate for independent hotline Feeder to Judicial Courts Complex, Ludhiana for total load of 1028.10 KW and requisite fee for framing the estimate was also deposited with the petitioner-Corporation. However, Additional Superintending Engineer of the petitioner-Corporation has intimated vide letter dated 31.01.2012 that as per instructions of the petitioner, there has to be minimum load of 2500 KVA for independent hotline Feeder.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation and learned State counsel and perused the case file.

¶22

There is no dispute that uninterrupted power supply has to be maintained for the Judicial Courts Complex, Ludhiana during working hours, for which impugned orders have been passed. Consequently, the impugned orders do not warrant any interference. However, the question to

¶23

C. R. No. 2978 of 2011

¶24

¶25

be resolved is regarding manner of implementation of impugned orders. Petitioner-Corporation is Corporation of State of Punjab. It is for the petitioner and the State of Punjab to make arrangement for uninterrupted power supply to the Judicial Courts Complex at Ludhiana to implement the impugned orders. Consequently, it would be appropriate if the petitionerCorporation and State of Punjab settle between themselves the modalities of implementing the impugned orders of the courts below. To meet the requirement of minimum load for independent Feeder, feasibility of including the load of District Administrative Complex or any other area may be examined by the petitioner-Corporation and State of Punjab. A joint meeting may be held by Chief Secretary with Secretaries of concerned departments including Home and Administration of Justice, Public Works Department (B&R) and Power and by associating the petitionerCorporation.

¶26

A copy of this order be sent to Chief Secretary to State of

¶27

Punjab.

¶28

With the aforesaid observations, the instant revision petition is

¶29

disposed of.

¶30

February 08, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Bar Association, Ludhiana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Bar Association, Ludhiana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hoshiar Singh Vs Tehsildar (Sales) and Ors.

Sadhu Singh and Others Vs Bhupinder Singh and Another

M/S Snow White Dry Cleaners and Others Vs Neena Jauhar and Others

Pritpaul Kaur @ Preeti Kohli Vs Paramjit Singh Kohli

Harjit Singh Deol Vs Kaur Singh Grewal and Ors.

Satnam Singh Vs Rajbior Singh and Ors.