CWP No.16260 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16260 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.12.2011 Atma Ram son of Sahi Ram, resident of Landhari, Tehsil and Distt. Hisar. ... Petitioner Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Managing Director, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. Narender Sura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition contains a prayer for quashing an order dated 05.03.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Chairman, Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances. The petitioner claims that he had applied for a tubewell connection in the year 1987 and they have not given the connection yet. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation points out to me that the latest circular that governs rights of the parties has been issued on 27.02.2008. This circular specifically refers to revival of cancelled applications and gives an opportunity for CWP No.16260 of 2010 (O&M) [2] any person to apply for tubewell connection, provided, it is forwarded with the written consent to the AGM, Operation to comply with the requirement of demand notice as per instructions. The sale circular also provides for a situation when a person does not come forward with such a revival application before 30.04.2008, in which case the Corporation is bound to issue a letter of cancellation of the application and the security should be refunded. The counsel for the Corporation is unable to give me details of whether such a cencellation was made or whether any such refund as contemplated through the notice dated 27.02.2008 was made. 2. The counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents are bound to issue notice offering the first tubewell connection and call upon the petitioner to keep all installations ready for undertaking a test report. The same has not been done. Apart from contending that the petitioner has been guilty of laches, there is nothing shown against the petitioner that would dis-entitle him to avail the tubewell connection. The order is, therefore, issued against the respondents to secure all the formalities to be completed and issue the tubewell connection within a period of 6 weeks from the date of this order. 3. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of as above. DECEMBER 05, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE