Civil Revision No. 3078 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3078 of 2011 Date of Decision: 11.5.2011 *** Baljeet Singh Dhadda .. Petitioner Vs. PSPCL, Patiala & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Gaurav Bhayyia, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner filed a suit against the respondent Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others seeking mandatory injunction directing them to restore the electricity connection No. H21BC320478A,installed at his shop which was disconnected by them illegally and also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from removing/ dis-connecting the electricity connection No. H21BC320512P installed at his residence. It was his case that defendants issued some bills claiming dues from him, which in fact were not due to him and following the same electricity connection installed at his shop was disconnected and defendants are also threatening to remove the electricity connection of his house unless and until the dues are not paid. The stand of the defendants, on the other hand, was that the plaintiff violated the provisions of Punjab Scheduled Roads Act/ PUDA Act, 1995 by raising construction of his shop within 30 meters of the scheduled road and acting upon the instructions received from XEN, PWD (B&R), Hoshiapur, the electricity connection of the plaintiff pertaining to his shop was disconnected. Civil Revision No. 3078 of 2011 2 Along with suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed, which after contest was dismissed by the learned trial Court. On an appeal filed by the plaintiff the order passed by the learned trial Court with regard to his plea of restoration of electricity connection of the shop of the plaintiff was upheld, however, the appeal was partly allowed and the defendants were restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply to the house of the plaintiff. Still dis-satisfied the plaintiff has filed the present revision petition. Heard. It is apparent from the records that in support of his plea the plaintiff did not show any proof or alleged bill or any demand notice alleged to have been issued by the defendants whereby any dues were claimed by them, rather it was shown to the Courts below that following a violation by the plaintiff of Punjab Scheduled Roads Act/ PUDA Act by encroaching upon the scheduled road by raising illegal construction in respect of his shop on which the aforesaid electricity connection was installed, his electricity supply was disconnected. Hence, he has rightly been declined the relief of ad-interim injunction in respect of the said electricity connection. There is no merit in the instant petition, which accordingly is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 11, 2011 Jiten