High CourtsSingle Bench(1994) 05 P&H CK 0081

Baldev Singh and Others vs The Punjab State Electricity Board and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 27 May 1994 · Citation: (1994) 108 PLR 385

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 2144 of 1994

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 390 words

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this petition and civil writ petitions Nos. 2956 of 1994 and 12095 of 1993 can be disposed of by a common order.

2.

The petitioner(s) in these cases pray for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the protected House Rent Allowance .......... as drawn by them on 30.8.1988. At the hearing of the case Mr. Gokalney, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the claim of the petitioners is inter-alia based on the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab vide letter dated September 19, 1990. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that these instructions have been duly adopted by the said State Electricity Board.

3.

Mr. Anil Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the petitioner(s) have not made any representation to the Board on the basis of these instructions and consequently, no ground for the issue of writ of mandamus is made out.

4.

It is true that before a writ of mandamus can be issued, there should be a demand and a denial In this situation, Mr. Gokalney, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the writ petition filed by the petitioners may be treated as a representation and the respondents may be directed to decide it by passing a speaking order within a reasonable period. Mr. Malhotra, appearing for the respondents has no objection.

5.

In view of the above, it is directed that the respondent-board shall considered the writ petitions filed by the various petitioners as a representation and decide the matter by passing a speaking order. In case, the petitioners are so advised, they may submit even supplementary representations within 15 days from today. Thereafter, the Board shall consider and decide the matter within three months. In case the petitioners have any grievance against the order that may be passed by the Board, they will be at liberty to approach this court. A copy of the order that may be passed by the Board shall be communicated to petitioner No. l in each of the cases. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. A copy of the order be given dasti to the counsel for the parties.