C.W.P. No.10291 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10291 of 1988 Date of Decision:04.03.2010 Dalip Singh (through LRs) and others ........Petitioners Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala through its Secretary and others ....Respondents Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. 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. There is no representation for the petitioner. The case is of the year 1988 and the matter relates to grant of electricity connection on the basis of seniority, which the petitioner claimed over several persons, who have been allegedly benefitted with electricity connections. When notice of motion was issued on 18.11.1988, this Court had directed to give connection to the petitioner in accordance with his number in the seniority list, which was on the basis of the deposit already made. On a claim for additional amount, the Court had directed that it will arise when the Court took a decision in the matter. I have hastened to dispose of the case in spite of the absence of the counsel for the petitioners having regard to the limited prayer on the basis of C.W.P. No.10291 of 1988 -2- records and with the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. It is stated by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the electricity connection has already been granted. On the issue of payment of additional charge, a reference has been made in the statement that a scheme/circular of the Board vide No.33 of 1987 required payment of additional charges under ARPC Scheme. The Scheme itself is not put to challenge in the writ petition. The respondents shall be allowed to collect such charges as the relevant Rules or Regulations allow them to demand and secure from a consumer. 3. With such liberty given to the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of taking note of the fact that the electricity connection, which was demanded by the petitioner has since been granted after the filing of the petition. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 04, 2010 Pankaj*