IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3547 of 2010 Date of Decision : November 25, 2010. Sukhdev Singh and another .....Petitioners versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.S.L.Chander Shekhar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.H.S.Grewal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. -.- 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 petitioners seek a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondent-authorities from shifting/alienating/transferring/disconnecting the tubewell connection bearing account No.D-509 of 7.5 H.P. installed in khata/khatauni No.73/429 and rect./killa No.16/21 in village Bahadurnagar, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran, allegedly belonging to the petitioners. They also seek a mandamus to direct the respondent- authorities to install the electric transformer connecting the above- mentioned tubewell with the agricultural fields of the petitioners. C.W.P.No .3547 of 2010 2 In their short reply-affidavit, the official respondent Nos.1 to 3 have categorically stated as follows:- “.........it is submitted that the electricity connection 0509 WTRX D920 FLI K044 is existing in the name of Sukhdev Singh. The same has never been changed and the said connection is still in the name of Sukhdev Singh and as per the Board no changes have been made as no application has been received for any such change and the connection as per the record of the Board is being used by Sukhdev Singh to irrigate his fields. It is denied that the tubewell connection has been allowed to be installed in the fields of respondent No.4.....” In para No.9 of the reply-affidavit, it is further averred that:- “....Contents of para No.9 of the petition are denied being incorrect. It is stated that the tubewell connection is still running in the fields of petitioner No.1 and the transformer was never shifted from the fields of the petitioners....” Notwithstanding the above reproduced categoric plea taken by the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners insist that the transformer has been removed and the power supply to the tubewell of the petitioner has been disconnected. Learned counsel for official respondents, however, reiterates his stand. In this situation when there is not an iota of evidence/proof on record to substantiate the allegations made by the petitioners, I am of the considered view that such like disputed questions of fact cannot be effectively resolved in these proceedings. The writ petition is accordingly C.W.P.No .3547 of 2010 3 dismissed by relegating the petitioners to the alternative remedy as may be available to them in law. Dasti. November 25, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE