BALDEV SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.) 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.