C.W.P. No.16570 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.16570 of 2011 Date of Decision.06.09.2011 Kuldeep Singh so of late Gurcharan Singh resident of Pakhokey, Tehsil and District Barnala .....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab through Chairman Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, the Mall, Patiala and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Narinder Lucky, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks for quashing of an order of dis-connection of electricity supply made on 17.04.2008. The electricity connection for an agricultural purpose was in respect of service installed in agricultural land that stood in the name of petitioner's brother Harbhajan Singh. To a first query as to how there was a delay in filing of the writ petition for more than three years after the disconnection was effected, the petitioner had to disclose that in respect of the very same cause of action, one Ajit Singh filed a suit impleading him as well before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala in Civil Suit No.364 of 2009. The plaintiff in that suit, Ajit Singh, had contended that the property had been purchased by him from Harbhajan Singh after an agreement of sale in his favour dated 06.09.1993 and subsequently conveyed to him by sale deed dated 08.04.1994. He had also moved an interlocutory application C.W.P. No.16570 of 2011 -2- for injunction, which was dismissed. He preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed. 2. After the dismissal, the petitioner comes before this Court and complains that Harbhajan Singh had changed the service connection in favour of his father and his uncle and therefore, the service connection did not belong to Ajit Singh, who has been arrayed as 5th respondent. The petitioner's attempt is a last fling, as it were that he has a share in the electric connection and that he has a subsisting interest to demand a re-connection. If he has any such right, he may have a remedy before the Civil Court through a civil suit on proof of title in the presence of the aforesaid Ajit Singh or his representative and not by means of a writ petition. Further the petition itself is delayed by laches and petitioner shall not have any remedy before this Court. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 06, 2011 Pankaj*