CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12066 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 18 ,2011 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Hisar and others .....Petitioner VERSUS The Electricity Ombuldsman, Haryana, Panchkula and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. B. S. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners before me in this petition are Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Managing Director, besides the Chief Engineer, the Superintending Engineer and other officials. They have come forward to challenge the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, who has allowed the prayer of respondent No.3 regarding non-release of electric connection for their project in the name of Suncity Height. The petitioners have accordingly filed this writ petition to challenge this order on number of grounds. As per the petitioners, the applied load was sanctioned to respondent No.3 on 25.10.2005 with number of conditions and one of the main condition was Condition No.xviii. This condition was to the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12066 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: effect that the load was being sanctioned subject to the condition that M/s Uddar Gagan Properties Pvt. Ltd. has no development agreement as associated Company with M/s Suncity Project Limited, Sector 54, Gurgaon. The submission is that though this objection was raised before Electricity Ombudsman but the same has not been considered in any manner. If the load was released to respondent No.4 on some conditions, the respondent can be expected to adhere to those conditions. In case of violation, the petitioners would certainly be entitled to plead that in such an eventuality, the sanctioned load be not continued or whatever legal consequences of that be. Since the objection, as raised by the petitioners, has not been dealt with by the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, I would deem it appropriate to remand the case back to the Electricity Ombudsman to re-consider and decide it afresh. The Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, would be well advised to consider all the plea raised by the respective parties and then decide the same in accordance with law. Since this Court is not expressing any opinion on merits, any observation made above is only for disposal of the writ petition and should not be considered to be an observation on merits. The case is remitted back to the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, on 19.4.2011. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. March 18,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE