-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 3837 of 2010 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 12, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 3837 of 2010 (O&M). Teja Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Gurbachan Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The plaintiff had obtained electric connection from defendant-Punjab State Electricity Board, Budhlada (for short `the Board'), the expenses for which i.e of cables, poles etc. were borne by the plaintiff himself. According to the plaintiff, he became owner of cables, poles etc. The connection is installed in the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is irrigating his land from -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 3837 of 2010 (O&M). the tube-well installed with the said electric connection. The plaintiff alleged that defendant Gurbachan Singh, in connivance with the officials of the Board, wanted to cause loss to the plaintiff as he (defendant Gurbachan Singh) wanted electric connection from the Board through the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the instant suit for permanent injunction by pleading that if the Board released electric connection to defendant Gurbachan Singh, he (plaintiff) would suffer irreparable loss. The said suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. Appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this Regular Second Appeal by the plaintiff. I have heard Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff-appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. The plaintiff-appellant had obtained electric connection under OYT Scheme. As per case of the Board, in case of OYT connections, the cables and poles etc. become property of the Board after the expiry of one year. As such, the cables and poles installed at the cost of the plaintiff became property of the Board. The Board wanted to release connection to defendant Gurbachan Singh through the Transformer from where the plaintiff had been given connection. The Board gave justification of issuing electric connection to defendant Gurbachan Singh by pleading that a number of other electric connections had already been given to other persons from the -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 3837 of 2010 (O&M). Transformer from where defendant Gurbachan Singh was earlier getting connection and the load on that Transformer had become excess. It was on this account that the connection of defendant Gurbachan Singh was being changed. There is nothing on record to suggest that any loss or damage will be caused to the plaintiff in case connection is released to defendant Gurbachan Singh from the Transformer from where electric connection has been issued to the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 12, 2011. JUDGE ak