C.W.P. No.18118 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.18118 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision.27.09.2011 Sh. Hori Lal s/o Antram Dass r/o House No.G-30, Old Press Colony, Faridabad, Distt. Faridabad Haryana .....Petitioner Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijali Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. K.K. Kahlon, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate for the applicant in C.M. Nos.12856 of 2011. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 is filed for a simple point relating to mandamus for restoration of electricity connection, which had been granted to the property in G-30, Old Press Colony, Faridabad. The property is admittedly in possession of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, which is a Government instrumentality states that the property had been allotted to one Ramesh Kumar but has has sublet the premises to the petitioner. Ramesh Kumar himself is an applicant seeking for impleadment that the petitioner is only his care taker at a time when he had gone to his village when his brother died but he now sets up false title to the property. The issue of title is irrelevant in this C.W.P. No.18118 of 2010 (O&M) -2- case and a disconnection, which is made by the Electricity Board without following any of the procedures laid down by law, was clearly wrong. We have come by a new dispensation through Section 43 of the Electricity Act where electricity is seen as a basic amenity and it is sufficient if a person is in possession of property and it is not necessary that there should be proof of title. The Government will be at liberty to take appropriate action if they have a grievance that petitioner is not entitled to possession. The applicant Ramesh Kumar, who seeks for impleadment stating that he is the allottee and that the petitioner is only a care taker, will not also be an issue that will fall for consideration in this writ petition. 2. The scope of the writ petition cannot be expanded by the contentions raised at the instance of the 3rd respondent or at the instance of applicant, who seeks for impleadment. The application for impleadment in C.M. No.12856 of 2011 is dismissed. 3. The petitioner is entitled to the prayer as made and interim order directing the provisional connection will stand confirmed. This will not, in any way, prejudice the original owners to take action in accordance with law as regards the claim of the petitioner relating to the character of his possession. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 27, 2011 Pankaj*