Allowed

Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Apr 2012CWP/17020/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought quashing of a memo permitting disconnection of electricity. The petitioner, a riot victim with possession of a flat, faced delays in connection regularization. The Court disposed of the petition by following a recent judgment in an identical matter.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of in the same terms as Harjit Singh's case, requiring respondents to release connection after securing documents and indemnity.

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.17020 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.17020 of 2011

¶5

Date of decision: 17.4.2012

Amrik Singh

-----Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab and others

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶12

Present:Mr. H.S.Deol, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶14

Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶15

Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .

¶16

The petitioner by way of present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of order dated 5.9.2011, Annexure P.4 whereby respondent No.2 - The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited had issued a memo for disconnection of the electricity connection granted to the petitioner.

¶17

As per averments in the petition, the petitioner is a riot victim and Sikh migrant. He is holding a Red Card. A policy had been framed by the State of Punjab for allotment of flats to the riot victims. The petitioner was allotted Flat No.4594-B, MIG, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali and possession was delivered to him. Thereafter, the State of Punjab had decided to regularise the allotment and protect the possession which had been made in the name of different persons.

¶18

CWP No.17020 of 2011

¶19

¶20

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court through CWP No.18002 of 2009 seeking regularisation of his possession and allotment. The matter was disposed of on 14.9.2010 with certain directions. However, the respondents instead of issuing the electric connection for which an application had been submitted by the petitioner and also to regularise the electricity connection, declined the same, the petitioner has impugned the said action of the respondents.

¶21

In the reply, it has been stated that certain formalities were required to be completed by the petitioner before electricity connection could be released to him for the premises in dispute.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar matter came up for consideration before this Court in CWP No.19431 of 2011 ( Harjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another ), decided on 20.3.2012 wherein a direction was given to the respondents to release the electricity connection to the petitioners after securing the requisite documents and also the indemnity within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the same.

¶24

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of in the same terms as Harjit Singh's case (supra).

¶25

April 17, 2012 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) 'gs' Judge

Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarsem Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Amandeep Singh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gill Cooperative L&C Society (Diploma Holder) Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurjant Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

J.C.B. India Ltd. Vs Permanent Lok Adalat (Pus) and Ors.

Sunita Vs Uhbvnl and Ors.