IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10866 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 3rd February, 2011. Manjeet Singh Petitioner through Mr. Sunil Tandon, Advocate Versus Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Ors. ` Respondents through Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate Mr. J.S.Puri, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to direct respondents No. 2 to 4 to restore the electricity connection to his tubewell which was statedly disconnected on 27.10.2009. The petitioner alleges that the power supply to his tubewell was disconnected at the instance of respondent No. 5 who is a former Minister and is the District President of the ruling party. The official respondents have filed their reply/affidavit explaining that the Transformer purchased by the petitioner as per the instructions/commercial circulars issued by the Board was allegedly found unsealed and a case of theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act was lodged vide FIR No. 46 dated 05.11.2009 at Police Station Anti-Power Theft, Bhatinda. The spot inspection was also made on 02.10.2009 and before registration of the FIR, a demand of `77,357/- was raised vide provisional Assessment Order dated 05.10.2009 on account of the electricity theft. On 29.06.2010 it was directed that in case the petitioner deposits a sum of `50,000/-, the electricity connection of his tubewell shall be restored within one week. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 states that the petitioner has deposited the afore-stated amount without prejudice to his rights and pursuant thereto the electricity connection has been restored. He further points out that no objection against the Provisional Assessment Order dated 05.10.2009 were filed by the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that since the electricity connection of the petitioner's tubewell has been restored under the interim directions, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the allegations made by the petitioner. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner has got effective alternative remedies firstly to submit objections against the Provisional Assessment Order and in the event of non-acceptance of the objections, he can file an appeal before the Prescribed Appellate Authority. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit his objections against the Provisional Assessment Order dated 05.10.2009 within a period of one month and if he does so, the authorities concerned are directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of one month. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Prescribed Appellate Authority. It is directed that during the pendency of these proceedings the electricity connection of the petitioner's tubewell shall not be disconnected subject to his depositing the monthly bills regularly. As regards the amount of `50,000/- or the balance amount of the bill raised by the respondents, it is directed that refund or deposit thereof shall depend upon the final outcome of the afore- stated proceedings. Disposed of. Dasti. February 03, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE