ORDER : Heard Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri Srinivas Chamarthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record, Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri More Shashi Kiran learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “.........to issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a Writ declaring that the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in releasing and continuing the electricity supply to 4 th respondent under SC No. 1013814 as arbitrary discriminatory and without any legal authority and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and contrary to the terms and condition of supply of power and consequently direct them to disconnect the electricity to the Service Connection bearing SC No.1013814 in the interest of justice........” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present w rit petition, is as under: The petitioner is the Secretary of petitioner waqf and the Waqf has certain properties at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad i.e., properties bearing house nos.6-1-1081, 6-1-1081/1, 6-1-1082/1 to 12. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 is not a duly inducted tenant in the subject properties owned by the petitioner waqf at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, however, he had been illegally inducted into the subject property in connivance with Mr. Masiuddin Kabeer and one Mr. Khusru Ali Baig who falsely claimed to be the Secretary of the petitioner waqf. The 4 th respondent having illegally entered into the possession of the subject property applied for the electricity connection and was granted service connection bearing SC.No.B.1013814 and the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 17.11.2014 requesting for disconnection of the said service connection and when there was inaction on the part of the official respondents herein, petitioner made again another representation, dated 24.11.2014 and in response to the said representation, the 3 rd respondent called upon the 4 th respondent to submit the relevant documents i.e., no objection certificate, payment of balance cc charges of Rs.3046/- and valid rental agreement within three days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The 3 rd respondent again issued another reminder letter dated 26.11.2014 to the 4 th respondent calling upon the 4 th respondent to produce the relevant documents and when the 4 th respondent failed to submit any documents the petitioner herein issued another representation, dated 03.12.2014 requesting the 3 rd respondent to disconnect the electricity service connection of the 4 th respondent herein. It is further the case of the petitioner that the 3 rd respondent instead of disconnecting the electricity supply of the 4 th respondent under SC No.1013814 issued the proceedings, dated 12.12.2014 intimating the petitioner herein that as per instructions of their standing legal advisor of TSSPDCL, the petitioner is requested to approach competent Court to obtain direction for disconnection of electricity supply for the SC No.1013814 under the 4 th respondent herein. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in releasing and continuing the electricity supply to the 4 th respondent under SC No.1013814 as arbitrary and contrary to the terms and conditions of supply of power, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A. The order, Lr.No. ADE/OP/SFBS/CI/DI/F-Legal/ D.No. 1199/14, dated 12.12.2014 of the 3 rd respondent addressed to the petitioner w aqf is extracted hereunder:- “Adverting to the above cited subject, vide under reference, and as per the instructions of our standing Legal Advisor of TSSPDCL, you are hereby requested to Approach competent Court and obtain direction for disconnection of electricity supply for the above services.” B. The relevant portion of the judgment, dated 29.08.2023 in O.S.No.679 of 2014 filed by the 4 th respondent along w ith three others to grant perpetual injunction against the defendants thereunder i.e., the GHMC, Tankbund, Hyderabad and tw o others (para Nos. 8.2, 9 & 10). 8.2. None of the documents filed by the plaintiffs shows their ownership or legal possession over the suit schedule property. As this suit is filed by plaintiffs praying this Court to restrain the defendant corporation from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs, hence this Court is of the opinion that it was the burden of plaintiffs to prove their possession over the suit schedule property. As this suit is filed by plaintiffs praying this Court to restrain the defendant corporation from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs, hence this Court is of the opinion that it was the burden of plaintiffs to prove their possession over the suit schedule property. As plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit schedule property, hence this Court is of the opinion that they are not entitled for the relief of granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendant corporation from causing interference in possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property or to demolish the suit schedule property. Issue Number 2 :- 9. It is the own evidence of PW1 that notice under section 685 of GHMC Act was not issued to the defendant corporation. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that suit is not maintainable without issuing notice under section 685 of GHMC Act to the defendant corporation. Issue Number 3:- 10. In the result, the suit is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that both parties shall bear their own costs. C. The counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 and in particular para Nos.8 and 11 are extracted hereunder:- 8. I respectfully submit that, in reply to the assertions mentioned in Para 4 of the Writ Affidavit that, "..I submit that the respondent No.4 herein is not a duly inducted tenant in the above properties owned by the petitioner waqf at Lakdikapool...." is concerned Respondent No.4 is holding a valid document showing his right as tenant of Petitioner Waqf which is filed as Ex-R1, hence the said assertion is denied and also if Petitioner is aggrieved by any Tenant, procedure established by law says to approach appropriate forum having subject matter jurisdiction but not the Hon'ble High Court. That, in replyto further assertions mentioned in Para 4 that, "...However, it appears that he is illegally inducted into the property of the petitioner waqf in connivance with Mr.Masiuddin Kabeer and Mr. Khusru Ali Baig, Mr.Khusru Ali Baig falsely claimed to be the Hon. Secretary of the petitioner Waqf. That, in replyto further assertions mentioned in Para 4 that, "...However, it appears that he is illegally inducted into the property of the petitioner waqf in connivance with Mr.Masiuddin Kabeer and Mr. Khusru Ali Baig, Mr.Khusru Ali Baig falsely claimed to be the Hon. Secretary of the petitioner Waqf. However, it is to be stated that the Hon'ble A.P.State Waqf Tribunal by order dated 30-09-2014 in I.A.No.155 of 2014 in O.A.No.64 of 2013 granted interim injunction restraining the members of the committee of which the said Khsuru Ali Baig purports to be the Hon. Secretary from interfering with or causing disturbance to the management of the petitioner Waqf through me as the Secretary and in administering various educational institutions run by the petitioner wakf through me as Correspondent...." is concerned it's an imagination of person interceding for Petitioner Wakf as Respondent No.4 is holding valid Tenancy Agreement which entitled Respondent No.4 to administer his business in the premises of H.Nos. 6-1- 1081, 6-1-1081/1 in Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. Moreover, said I.A.No.155 of 2014 in O.A.No.64 of 2013, was ordered only on 30-09-2014, it is pertinent to mention here that, said Khsuru Ali Baig was appointed as Hon. Secretary of Petitioner Wakf on Dated: 04-11-2013 vide resolution Dated: 04-11-2013 and the same was acknowledged by The Chief Executive Officer, A.P State Wakf Board on Dated: 27-11-2013 vide F.A.No.42/Hyd/C/2013-ZI, it was during this time Respondent No.4 has obtained Tenancy and No-Objection-Certificate which were requisite in obtaining valid permissions from Respondent Nos.1 to 3 for Electricity supply. That, even if seen with Magnifying glass said Order in I.A.No.155 of 2014 in O.A.No.64 of 2013, nowhere mentions that all the actions of said Khsuru Ali Baig as Hon. Secretary of Petitioner Wakf done prior to said Order in I.A.No.155 of 2014 in O.A.No.64 of 2013 are invalid. The other assertions are denied in toto. (Copy of resolution Dated:04-11-2013 appointing Mirza Khuzro Ali Baig as Hon'ble secretary of Petitioner wakf which was acknowledged by The Chief Executive Officer, A.P State Wakf Board on Dated:27-11-2013 vide F.A.No.42/Hyd/C/2013-ZI and No-Objection certificated issued by Petitioner Wakf is filed herein as Ex-R2 and Ex-R3 respectively) 11. The other assertions are denied in toto. (Copy of resolution Dated:04-11-2013 appointing Mirza Khuzro Ali Baig as Hon'ble secretary of Petitioner wakf which was acknowledged by The Chief Executive Officer, A.P State Wakf Board on Dated:27-11-2013 vide F.A.No.42/Hyd/C/2013-ZI and No-Objection certificated issued by Petitioner Wakf is filed herein as Ex-R2 and Ex-R3 respectively) 11. I respectfully submit that, in reply to the assertions mentioned in Para 7 of the Writ Affidavit that, ".....I submit that the third respondent issued another letter dated 26- 11-2014 to the 4th respondent calling upon him to produce No Objection Certificate and valid Rental Agreement from the original owners within 3 days from the date of receipt notice as otherwise the electricity connection would be disconnected without any further notice....." is concerned Respondent No.4 immediately after receiving the letter, have approached the said authority and submitted all the relevant materials as mentioned in the Letter. In reply to further assertions mentioned in Para 7 that, ".....I submit that the 4th respondent could not have submitted any NOC and valid Rental Agreement from the original owner as there is no such documents are with him. However, no action has been taken...." is concerned only based on imagination of Petitioner no cause of action will arise as petitioner himself in his affidavit stated "could not have submitted". It is for the Petitioner to know all the facts before initiating a litigation as Respondent No.4 has submitted all the relevant material as asked in Letter. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- DISCUSSION:- 5. The learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts-forth the following submissions:- i) The 4 th respondent has no legal right as a tenant in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioner w aqf located at Lakdikapool and he had been illegally inducted into the subject property. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- DISCUSSION:- 5. The learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts-forth the following submissions:- i) The 4 th respondent has no legal right as a tenant in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioner w aqf located at Lakdikapool and he had been illegally inducted into the subject property. ii) In response to the petitioner’s representations, seeking disconnection of the electricity supply to the 4 th respondent under SC No.1013814, the 3 rd respondent issued letter, dated 26.11.2014 to the 4 th respondent to submit the relevant documents i.e., no objection certificate, rental receipt, valid rental agreement and w hen the 4 th respondent failed to submit the said relevant documents, the 3 rd respondent instead of disconnecting the subject electricity supply provided to the 4 th respondent under SC No. B1-13814 had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 12.12.2014 requesting the petitioner to approach competent Court and obtained direction for disconnection of electricity supply of the 4 th respondent herein and the same is illegal and arbitrary. iii) The action of the 3 rd respondent is contrary to the terms and conditions of the pow er supply. iv) The 4 th respondent along w ith three others had filed suit O.S.No.679 of 2014 to grant perpetual injunction against the defendants thereunder i.e., against the GHMC Tankbund, Hyderabad and two others in respect of property bearing municipal No.6-1-1081,6-1-1081/1 to 4 and 6-1-1082/1 to 12 admeasuring 7,000 sq.ft located at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad and the same w as dismissed vide judgment, dated 29.08.2023 in O.S.No.679 of 2014 passed by the Court of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition. The learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner based on the above referred submissions contended that the Writ Petition needs to be allow ed as prayed for. 6. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein mainly puts- forth the follow ing submissions:- i) There is no illegality in the order, dated 12.12.2014 passed by the 3 rd respondent herein, since as per Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, owner or occupier is entitled for electricity service connection. ii) The action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein mainly puts- forth the follow ing submissions:- i) There is no illegality in the order, dated 12.12.2014 passed by the 3 rd respondent herein, since as per Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, owner or occupier is entitled for electricity service connection. ii) The action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in releasing and continuing the electricity supply to the 4 th respondent under SC No.B1-13814 is legal and in accordance to Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003. iii) The disputes between the petitioner and the 4 th respondent herein cannot be decided or adjudicated either by the 4 th respondent or by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of I ndia and therefore, the petitioner w as requested to approach competent Court to obtain appropriate direction for disconnection of the subject electricity pow er supply of the 4 th respondent herein under Service Connection bearing SC No.B1-13814. iv) The electricity supply issued in favour of 4 th respondent cannot be disconnected at the instance of the petitioner herein since an occupier/possessor is also entitled for electricity supply w hich is integral part of right to life of a Citizen. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended that there is no illegality in the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in releasing and continuing the electricity supply to the 4 th respondent under SC.No.B1-13814 nor there is any illegality in the proceedings, dated 12.12.2014 issued to the petitioner by the 3 rd respondent herein. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.4 mainly puts-forth the following submissions:- i) The respondent No.4 in the capacity of the tenant of the subject premises is an occupier and possessor of the subject property and hence, is entitled for the electricity service connection as per Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. ii) The dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner O.S.No.679 of 2014 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is not an order passed on merits, but since notice under Section 685 of GHMC Act w as not issued to the defendant Corporation i.e., GHMC, the low er Court held the suit as not maintainable and therefore, the said judgment has no relevance to the present case. iii) Till the dispute between the petitioner and the 4 th respondent is resolved before competent Civil Court, 4 th respondent’s right to electricity supply w hich is an integral part of right to life of the 4 th respondent cannot be denied to the 4 th respondent nor the 4 th respondent can be deprived of the same w ithout follow ing due process of law . Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.4 contends that the Writ Petition needs to be dismissed in limini CONCLUSION:- 8. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner in the present Writ Petition had not challenged the proceedings, dated 12.12.2014 of the 3 rd respondent issued to the petitioner, but prayed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in releasing and continuing the electricity supply to the 4 th respondent under SC No.B1-13814 as arbitrary, discriminatory and w ithout any legal authority and consequently direct the official respondent Nos.1 to 3 to disconnect the electricity service connection bearing SC No.B1-13814. 9. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is extracted hereunder:- “Section 43. (Duty to supply on request) (1)[Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution] licensee , shall, on an application by the ow ner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, w ithin one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply: Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub- stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission: 1 Subs. by Act 26 of 2007, Sec.8 for the words “Every distribution” Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area. by Act 26 of 2007, Sec.8 for the words “Every distribution” Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area. 1[Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, “application” means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances.] (2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1): Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission. (3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default.” 10. It is specific case of the 4 th respondent that the 4 th respondent is the tenant of the subject properties and the 4 th respondent adopting due legal procedure obtained the electricity power supply and the 4 th respondent obtained valid permission from the petitioner waqf and entered into possession of the subject property. The said specific contentions of the 4 th respondent are how ever, disputed by the petitioner through the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.4 and it is the specific plea of the petitioner that the 4 th respondent is an encroacher of petitioner w aqf property. This Court under Article 226 cannot adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the 4 th respondent herein. 11. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453 in between K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State of Electricity Board and others passed in Civil Appeal Nos.2109 and 2110 of 2004, dated 19.05.2023, observed as under: “The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. 11. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453 in between K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State of Electricity Board and others passed in Civil Appeal Nos.2109 and 2110 of 2004, dated 19.05.2023, observed as under: “The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities.” 12. The Apex Court in its Judgment reported in (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 314 in between Chandu Khamaru Vs. Nayan Malik and Others passed in Civil Appeal No.7572 of 2011 dated 02.09.2011 observed as under: Sub-section (1) of Section 42 and sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are quoted herein below: "42. Duties of distribution licensees and open access-(1) It shall be the duty of a distribution licensee to develop and maintain an efficient co-ordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act." "43. Duty to supply on request-(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply." 7. It will be clear from sub-section (1) of Section 42 that every distribution licensee has a duty to develop and maintain an efficient co-ordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 43 provides that every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. Sub-section (1) of Section 43 provides that every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. These provisions in the Electricity Act, 2003 make it amply clear that a distribution licensee has a statutory duty to supply electricity to an owner or occupier of any premises located in the area of supply of electricity of the distribution licensee, if such owner or occupier of the premises applies for it, and correspondingly every owner or occupier of any premises has a statutory right to apply for and obtain such electric supply from the distribution licensee. 10. …The case of the appellant, on the other hand, is that this passage is not a private passage of respondent Nos.1 to 3 but is a common passage and therefore an electric line can be drawn through this common passage. This dispute will have to be resolved in Civil Suit No.83 of 2004 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), How rah, or in any other suit, but pending resolution of this dispute between the parties, the appellant cannot be denied supply of electricity to his house. 11. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned order of the Division Bench and dispose of the Writ Petition of respondent nos.1 to 3 with the direction that the distribution licensee will find out whether there is any other way in which electric line can be drawn for supply of electricity to the house of the appellant, other than the disputed passage in Dag Nos.406, 407 and 409. If there is no other way to supply electricity to the house of the appellant, the distribution licensee will follow the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for carrying out the work for supply of electricity to the house of the appellant. 13. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2022 LiveLaw 570 in between Dilip (dead) through LRs Vs. Satish and others passed in CRLA No.810 of 2022 (arising out of Special Leave petition (CRL)No.8917 of 2019), dated 13.05.2022 observed as under: “It is not disputed that applicant No.1 has obtained the connection of electricity. 13. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2022 LiveLaw 570 in between Dilip (dead) through LRs Vs. Satish and others passed in CRLA No.810 of 2022 (arising out of Special Leave petition (CRL)No.8917 of 2019), dated 13.05.2022 observed as under: “It is not disputed that applicant No.1 has obtained the connection of electricity. The submissions made show that applicant No. 1 is in possession of the shop and he is running a saloon shop. It is clear that he needs electricity for doing this business, but the first informant was not giving no objection certificate. He took every step to see that applicant No. 1 does not get supply of electricity for his business. It is not the case of the Applicant No. 1 that as per the agreement between him and landlord, the landlord is bound to supply the electricity. Further, the Electricity Board seeks no objection of landlord only to verify that the possession of the tenant is authorised. There is no other purpose behind obtaining such no objection from landlord. The landlord cannot prevent the tenant from availing such facility at his ow n cost. It is now w ell settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of w hich a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question. Be that as it may, the High Court clearly fell in error in quashing the FIR. It cannot be said that fabrication and/or creation of records and/or forging a signature does not constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code. The High Court completely overlooked the definition of cheating in Section 415 of the IPC. It is how ever made clear that electricity supply granted, shall not be discontinued, subject to compliance by the Respondents of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity by the electricity department including payment of charges for the same.” 14. The High Court completely overlooked the definition of cheating in Section 415 of the IPC. It is how ever made clear that electricity supply granted, shall not be discontinued, subject to compliance by the Respondents of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity by the electricity department including payment of charges for the same.” 14. This Court opines that as per Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and as observed in the various judgments of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above), all that the Electricity Supply Authority is required to examine is w hether the applicant for Electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Omprakash Vs. Balkar Singh reported in 2022 SCC Online P&H 3733 held that Electricity is an integral part of right to life and the same cannot be deprived w ithout follow ing due process of law . 15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and conclusion arrived at para Nos. 5 to 11 of the present judgment, this Court opines that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 16. Taking into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions put-forth by all the learned counsel on record, c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the unofficial respondent No.4 (referred to and extracted above), d) Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (referred to and extracted above), e) The averments made in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 , f) The view of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above), i. K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State of Electricity Board and others reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 453 ii. Chandu Khamaru Vs. Nayan Malik and Others reported in (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 314 iii. between Dilip (dead) through LRs Vs. Satish and others reported in 2022 Live Law 570 iv. In the case of Omprakash Vs. Kerala State of Electricity Board and others reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 453 ii. Chandu Khamaru Vs. Nayan Malik and Others reported in (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 314 iii. between Dilip (dead) through LRs Vs. Satish and others reported in 2022 Live Law 570 iv. In the case of Omprakash Vs. Balkar Singh reported in 2022 SCC Online Punjab & Haryana 3733, f) The contents of the order dated 12.12.2014 vide, letter Lr.No. ADE/OP/SFBS/CI/F-Legal/D.No.1199/ 14 of the 3 rd respondent herein (referred to and extracted above), g) The discussion and conclusion arrived at Para Nos.5 to 11 of the present judgment, This Court opines that the present Writ Petition is devoid of merits, and the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present w rit petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.