' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---The father of the petitioner obtained a electricity connection to run a Tubewell. After the death of the father, connection was being utilized by the petitioner. He felt aggrieved of a bill sent to him by the respondent in the month of October, 2000 and challenged the same by filing a suit. The amount found to be due was paid by the petitioner. The suit as well as the first appeal was dismissed, The grievance being made out in this writ petition is that on dismissal of the suit on 23-4-2003 the respondents disconnected the supply on 25-4-2003 without serving a notice in violation of section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910.
2. The notice was issued to the respondents, Mr. Abdul Razzaq Raja, Advocate, has put in appearance while respondent No.2 is present in person. It is being stated that no doubt the dues have been paid but the re-connection would involve an expenditure of about Rs. One lac. When called upon to explain as to why this money is required to be paid when the Transformer is already there. The reply is that the Transformer was fixed when the father of the petitioner got the connection. Now some houses are being electrified and a new transformer will have to be fixed.
Reference is being made to the policy decision take by the respondents in the matter of re- connection.
3. I have given some thought to the respective contentions of the parties. To my mind in the admitted state of affairs that the Transformer was fixed when the connection was provided and it is still working, the respondents have no justification to demand further charges. I have already noted above that all the dues have admittedly been paid by the petitioner. The writ petition accordingly is allowed and the respondents are directed to re-connect the Tubewell of the petitioner with the source already available. No orders as to costs.