Disposed¶24

Amrik Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2025CWP/3919/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Kuldeep Tiwari, J., 02.05.2025) disposed of CWP-3919-2016 (O&M) by Amrik Singh against PSPCL's order releasing his tubewell connection from the AP Feeder instead of the requested Badon Kandi/Kandi Feeder; on the Distribution Licensee's undertaking, the petition was disposed of with a 15-day direction to reconsider the entire issue, expressly without deciding merits and declared non-precedential. No statute sections or precedent cases were cited.

What did the court decide?

Direction upon the respondent-Distribution Licensee to reconsider the entire issue (the petitioner's request for tubewell connection, offered to be reconsidered through Kandi Feeder) within 15 days from the date of the order. ¶24

Amrik Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's request for grant of tubewell connection from Badon Kandi Feeder — rejected without assigning any reason while others in the area had been granted connection from the Kandi Feeder (24 hours) — warranted quashing of the order releasing his tubewell connection from the AP Feeder.

¶17

Court's answer

In view of the specific stand taken by the respondents (undertaking to reconsider), this Court disposed of the instant petition with a direction upon the respondent-Distribution Licensee concerned to reconsider the entire issue within 15 days from the date of the order.

¶24

Key takeaways

The Court did not pass any order on the merits of the instant case, and its order therefore cannot be considered as a precedent to any other person.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Amrik Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others — CWP-3919-2016 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 02.05.2025 (Kuldeep Tiwari, J.). The writ petition sought certiorari quashing of the order of the Superintending Engineer (Commercial), PSPCL, Jalandhar (respondent No.3), whereby the petitioner's tubewell electric connection was ordered to be released from the AP Feeder, the petitioner claiming his request for connection from Badon Kandi Feeder had been rejected arbitrarily without reasons although others in the area had connections from the Kandi Feeder (24 hours), and the AP Feeder lines lay farther from his land. Counsel for the Distribution Licensee submitted there was no pre-existing right to a connection from a particular feeder and the allocation was a purely technical, non-discriminatory decision, but, on instructions, and noting the matter was pending since 2016, undertook to reconsider the petitioner's request for a tubewell connection through Kandi Feeder, conditional on the case not being treated as a precedent. The Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Distribution Licensee to reconsider the entire issue within 15 days, expressly recording that no order was passed on merits and the order could not be treated as a precedent for any other person.

¶1

CWP-3919-2016 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

203

¶5

CWP-3919-2016 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.05.2025

Amrik Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶12

Present: Mr. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. H.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the respondents.

¶14

¶15

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(oral)

¶16

Through the instant petition prayer is made for issuance of certiorari for quashing of the order passed by the Superintending Engineer (Commercial), Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Jalandharrespondent No.3, whereby, the electric connection for tubewell of the petitioner was ordered to be released from AP Feeder.

¶17

The grievance which propelled the present petitioner to file the instant petition is that the petitioner made a request for grant of tubewell connection from Badon Kandi Feeder, which has been rejected arbitrarily, without assigning any reason, whereas, number of other persons, of that area have already been granted connection from the Kandi Feeder (24 hours). He further submits that the transmission lines which connects Kandi Feeder

¶18

are near to the land of the petitioner, whereas, the transmission line of AP

¶19

SATYAWAN 2025.05.06 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-3919-2016 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

Feeder are at a farther distance.

¶23

Mr. H.S. Ghuman, learned counsel for the respondentDistribution Licensee, after having instructions from the quarter concerned, submits that though the petitioner does not have any pre-existing right to ask for connection from a particular Feeder, as it was a purely technical decision taken by the authorities concerned, and only after considering all the technical aspects, the said decision has been taken. He also submits that there is no discrimination in the said decision, as the same is based on certain parameters, and the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error in the administrative decision taken by the authorities concerned. Finally, after having instruction from the quarter concerned, he submits that, in case, the instant case is not considered as a precedent, and since the matter is pending since the year 2016, the respondent- Distribution Licensee, submits that they shall reconsider the request of the petitioner, for providing tubewell connection through Kandi Feeder.

¶24

In view of the specific stand taken by the respondents, this Court is disposing of the instant petition with a direction upon the respondent – Distribution Licensee concerned, to reconsider the entire issue within 15 days from today. It goes without saying that this Court has not passed the order on merits of the instant case, and therefore, it cannot be considered as a precedent to any other person.

¶25

5. Disposed of , accordingly.

¶26

02.05.2025 (KULDEEP TIWARI) Satyawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶27

SATYAWAN 2025.05.06 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Amrik Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrik Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Mehtabgarh Co. Op Labour and Construction Society Ltd. Vs the State of Punjab and Others

M/S Acme Remedies through Its Authorized Representative Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ms Shree Ganesh Constructions Vs the State of Punjab and Others

Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Subhash Chand @ Subahsh Chander Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Amritsar Plywood through Its Partner Sh Amarjit Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others