Allowed

Mehar Chand v. Uhbvnl & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Mar 2012CWP/15856/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought release of a tubewell electric power connection after complying with all financial requirements. The court found no justification for denying the petitioner despite his application date being prior to that of other applicants. The petition was allowed with a direction to release the connection.

What did the court decide?

Directions to release the tubewell connection to the petitioner within four weeks from receipt of the certified copy of this order.

Mehar Chand Vs Uhbvnl & Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 15856 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 15856 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: 19.3.2012

Mehar Chand

....Petitioner.

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others

¶10

...Respondents.

¶11

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Ravindra Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents.

¶14

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶15

In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who had applied for a tubewell connection is seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release tubewell connection with load of 3BHP Single, 3 Phase 230-400 Voltage as per the rules.

¶16

According to the averments made in the petition, the petitioner applied for a tubewell connection vide application dated 14.11.2007 and had also deposited a sum of Rs.285/- vide receipt of the same date (Annexure P-1). The petitioner was issued a demand notice vide memo dated 6.3.2009 asking him to further deposit a sum of

¶17

CWP No. 15856 of 2011 -2-

¶18

Rs.20,000/- as consent money either in cash or by way of draft along with instruction regarding the material to be used for installation of tubewell connection and supply line to the tubewell. The petitioner deposited the said amount on 27.3.2009 vide receipt No. BA-16/30679. Besides the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs.100/- was also deposited with the Red Cross Society as demanded by the respondents. After complying with the aforesaid conditions, the petitioner approached the respondents for release of the tubewell connection but the same was not released. The petitioner was further asked to deposit Rs.21000/and Rs.400/- which was also complied with. Inspite of having fulfilled all formalities, the tubewell connection was not being released which necessitated the petitioner to file the present petition in this Court.

¶19

Upon notice of motion having been issued, the respondents filed reply. Along with the reply, a copy of seniority of the applicants for release of tubewell connection (Annexure R-3) has been appended. The name of the petitioner has been shown at Sr. No. 17 therein.

¶20

The averments made in the reply have been controverted by the petitioner by filing replication. By way of replication, it has been pointed out that Jarnail Singh, mentioned at Sr. No.18 had applied on 31.12.2007 and connection has been released to him whereas the petitioner had applied prior to him on 14.11.2007 but the same has not been released to him so far.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶22

On a query being put to the learned counsel for the respondents as to why the tubewell connection has been released to

¶23

CWP No. 15856 of 2011 -3-

¶24

the person mentioned at Sr. No. 18 whereas the petitioner who is at Sr. No.17 has been denied the same, he was not able to give any justification.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the tubewell connection to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶26

March 19, 2012 gbs

¶27

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

Mehar Chand v. Uhbvnl & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehar Chand v. Uhbvnl & Ors.

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

Dharam Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Shree Trading Co. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Puran Singh & Ors. Vs Joginder Singh

Chaman Lal Chopra Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surjit Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab