Dismissed¶27

Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Aug 2025CWP/16768/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for electric connection dismissed as not maintainable; alternate statutory remedy; theft of electricity via direct connection; Section 135 Electricity Act 2003 notices; Section 153 Special Court remedy; PSPCL penalty Rs.77,366/- petitioner, Rs.15,23,638/- builder; raid/checking 30.06.2021 Annexure R-1; notice 02.07.2021 Annexure P-2; mandamus refused; Kharar; maintainability of writ vs statutory forum.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the forum specified under the statute (Special Court under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003). ¶27

Swaran Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the forum specified under the statute (Special Court under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003).

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide an electric connection to his flat in Maa Shimla Complex, Kharar. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

On a perusal of the checking report (Annexure R-1), upon joint checking of the complex some flats and shops were found to have made direct connections and were drawing electricity even though meters had been installed in some shops and flats; as it was a case of theft of electricity, individual notices had been issued to the flat owners and commercial shops under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Special Court under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003; the instant writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternate statutory and efficacious remedy.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, 21.08.2025 (Suvir Sehgal, J., oral) — CWP-16768-2021 (O&M): A retired bank manager sought a writ of mandamus for release of an electricity connection to his flat at Maa Shimla Complex, Sector 127, Kharar, purchased on 11.04.2018; application made to PSPCL on 01.06.2018 (Annexure P-1). Following a raid and checking report Annexure R-1 (raid of 30.06.2021), the complex was found to be drawing electricity through direct connections constituting theft; individual notices were issued under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (penalty Rs.77,366/- on the petitioner besides compounding charges; Rs.15,23,638/- on the builder-respondent No.5). Held: the petitioner's remedy lies before the Special Court under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003; the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternate statutory and efficacious remedy. Petition dismissed with liberty to approach the statutory forum.

¶1

CWP-16768-2021 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

223 CWP-16768-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.08.2025

SWARAN SINGH

... Petitioner

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Kulwinder S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr. Amrit S. Kang, Advocate for respondent No. 2 to 4.

¶14

***

¶15

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)

¶16

By way of instant petition, petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus inter alia for directing respondents to provide an electric connection to his flat.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who has retired as a Senior Manager from Allahabad Bank, purchased a flat in Maa Shimla Complex, Landra Road, Sector 127, Kharar, on 11.04.2018 and applied for an electric connection with Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (PSPCL) on 01.06.2018, Annexure P-1 by depositing the requisite security amount. Counsel states that a raid was conducted and a notice dated 02.07.2021, Annexure P-2, was issued to the complex

¶18

Pooja Saini 2025.09.04 11:22 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment

¶19

CWP-16768-2021 (O&M) -2-

¶20

alleging that the electricity was being drawn by making a direct connection. PSPCL imposed a penalty for committing theft of electricity and sent an intimation to police authorities for registration of an FIR against the builder-respondent No.5. Counsel asserts that when the petitioner approached PSPCL for release of electric connection, he was asked to pay the outstanding amount pending against the complex.

¶21

Upon notice, writ petition has been contested by PSPCLrespondents No. 2 to 4 by filing a written statement, wherein it has been submitted that a raid was conducted on 30.06.2021 and it was found that theft of electricity was being committed. Reference has been made to the electricity checking report, Annexure R-1. It has been stated that a notice, Annexure R-2, has been issued to the petitioner imposing a penalty of Rs.77,366/- besides compounding charges. A separate notice has been issued to the builder-respondent No.5, whereby a penalty of Rs.15,23,638/- has been levied. Counsel for the respondents has raised an objection that as petitioner was found committing theft of electricity, notices under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 were issued and writ petition is not the remedy available to him.

¶22

A perusal of the report, Annexure R-1, shows that upon a joint checking of the complex, it was found that some flats and shops had made a direct connection and were drawing electricity, even though electric meters had been installed in some shops and flats. As it was a case of theft of the electricity, individual notices had been issued to the flat owners and commercial shops under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In such a situation, the remedy available to the petitioner is of

¶23

Pooja Saini 2025.09.04 11:22 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment

¶24

CWP-16768-2021 (O&M)

¶25

-3-

¶26

approaching the Special Court under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Instant writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternate statutory and efficacious remedy.

¶27

In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the forum specified under the statute.

¶28

21.08.2025 (SUVIR SEHGAL) pooja saini JUDGE

¶29

Whether Speaking/Reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶30

Pooja Saini 2025.09.04 11:22 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment

Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajender Contractor Vs State of Haryana and Others

Makhan Lal Tanwar Vs the State of Haryana through Its Director, Directorate School Education, Shiksha Sadan

Shailender Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sanjay Agro Industries Ltd. Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Gurinder Kaur and Anr. Vs the Union Territory, Chandigarh and Ors.

Sukhjit Kaur Vs Union of India and Others