CWP No. 2266 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2266 of 2007 Date of decision 7.1.2008 Swinder Singh .. petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr.U.K.Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikram Chuahan Advocate for the respondents. M.M.Kumar, J. The petitioner who is an agriculturist has approached this Court for issuance of direction to the respondents for release of electricity connection on his tube-well. It is claimed that he had applied for the release of connection in the year 1990 and despite release of connection to the applicants who had applied much later, the petitioner has not been given the connection. According to the averments made in the petition a demand notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent no. 3 (Assistant Executive Engineer, PSEB) on 22.9.2005 (Annexure P.2) mentioning that the load of 2.318 KW electricity would be supplied to him. He was also directed to deposit Rs. 9,000/- as costs of service connection besides completion of other formalities. The petitioner is stated to have deposited a sum of Rs.9,000/- and thereafter the site was duly inspected by the employees of the respondent Board. The test report duly prepared by the petitioner was submitted in the office of Assistant Executive Engineer- respondent no.3 complete in all respects but no electricity connection was given. A legal notice was also issued by the petitioner through his counsel. The cause of the petitioner has been opposed by the CWP No. 2266 of 2007 2 respondent- Board by taking the stand that the petitioner has concocted a story because the alleged receipts on the basis of which the petitioner has filed the petition as per record of the Board is in the name of one Harbans Singh son of Didar Singh. It has further been clarified that connection to the aforementioned Harbans Singh was released on 16.9.1993 and all the formalities by the audit authorities were completed. According to the stand of the respondent-Board the entry in the register has been tampered with and one Jaswant singh Cashier-cum-Accounts Clerk, who is suspected to have conspired, has been suspended and a charge sheet has been issued to him on 14.6.2006. According to the charge-sheet allegations against Jaswant Singh are that he tampered with the record and have shown different names of the applicants then the actual applicants. According to the record produced before us there is substantial support available to the assertions made by the respondent- Board. It is clear to a naked eye from the cash book that the name of Swinder Singh son of Sohan Singh, petitioner has been super imposed after rubbing some other name whereas the copy of the sanction estimate register shows that the name of one Harbans Singh at serial No. 4657 has been entered who had applied on 16.8.1990. The Board has also filed an FIR against the aforementioned Jaswant Singh. It has been prayed that the writ petitioner does not deserve any relief from the Court. At the time of arguments, our attention was pointedly invited to the averments made in para 3 of the reply which are to the effect that as per the record of the Board connection has been sanctioned in favour of one Harbans Singh and his name figures at serial no. 1705 vide application No. 4657 dated 16.8.1990 and that the record had been tampered with by Jaswant Singh. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable CWP No. 2266 of 2007 3 length and are of the view that this petition is liable to be dismissed as the application alleged to have been made by the petitioner has no trace in the record of the respondent-Board. According to the record of the respondent- Board the electricity connection for which application was filed by one Jaswant Singh on 16.8.1990, stood released to him way back in the year 1993. The afore-mentioned registration number has been claimed by the petitioner which is contrary to the record of the respondent Board. The petition is wholly scandalous and the petitioner does not deserve to be granted any relief especially in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S.Mann) 7.1.2008 Judge okg