Civil Revision No. 6084 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6084 of 2009 Date of decision : 24.5.2010 Ajit Singh Chouhan and others ....Petitioners Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meenaxi Dogra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Senior Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda,Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Ms. Maloo Chahal, AAG., Haryana S. D. ANAND, J. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for the restraint of defendants-respondents from disconnecting their electricity connection. Along with the suit, there was a prayer for the grant of interim relief by the restoration of electricity connection which had been disconnected in the meantime. The learned Trial Court granted ad-interim relief, in allowance of plea under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C., by observing that the disconnection could not have been ordered without affording an opportunity of a hearing to the plaintiffs-petitioners. In a finding of reversal, however, learned Ist Appellate Civil Revision No. 6084 of 2009 2 Court held that ad-interim plea deserved dismissal inasmuch as the land, upon which the construction raised by the plaintiffs-petitioners existed, was covered under the Aravali Plantation Project Area. The further finding was that the judgment dated 18.3.2004 of the Apex Court, which barred any non forest activity, in the area covered by the Aravali Project Plantation justified the dismissal of the ad-interim plea. The plaintiffs-petitioners are in revision against it. It is not even an averment on behalf of the respondents that the plaintiffs-petitioners had been afforded an opportunity of a hearing before the impugned electricity disconnection came about. There is enough material on the file to support the averment that the plaintiffs-petitioners have been enjoying electricity connection at the relevant premises for the last number of years. In that view of things, the principles of natural justice ordained that they were afforded an opportunity of a hearing before the impugned disconnection could be ordered. Notice issued by the official respondents would have indicated that the proposed disconnection has to come about in the light of a particular judgment or a particular notification issued by the Government of India. The petitioners-herein would have had an opportunity to explain their cause and make an endeavour to indicate the inapplicability of the judgment/notification aforementioned. If the plaintiffs-petitioners were able to do so to the satisfaction of the competent authority (official respondents) the latter would have refrained from disconnecting the already granted electricity Civil Revision No. 6084 of 2009 3 connection. Things would have been otherwise if the point made by the plaintiffs-petitioners did not find favour with the official respondents. None the less, the irresistible inference is that the plaintiffs-petitioners had to be afforded an opportunity of a hearing in accord with the principle of natural justice particularly when they had been enjoying the electricity connection for the last number of hears. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 31.7.2009 shall stand set aside. The order granted by the learned Trial Court shall stand upheld. This shall not, ofcourse, disable the respondents from affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs-petitioners and granting an order afresh in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. May 24, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE