IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.13015 of 2011 Date of decision November 28, 2011 Lilu Ram ....... Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Litd and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Mr. Ashwani Bura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narainder Hooda, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S. K. Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** 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. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 says that there is no lapse or laxity on their part but the obstruction for laying the electrical wiring is being caused by the fourth respondent. Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 says that they have asked for police protection and the same is still not forthcoming. I direct respondent No.3 to give protection to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. They shall take appropriate action if any obstruction is made to the lawful act done in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court if the official respondents are still not able to complete the work. The whole exercise must be completed within a period of eight weeks from today. 3. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 28 , 2011 archana