{"id":98142,"date":"2007-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007"},"modified":"2015-10-08T19:34:39","modified_gmt":"2015-10-08T14:04:39","slug":"sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"Sohan Singh Sodhi vs Punjab State Electricity Board, &#8230; on 9 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sohan Singh Sodhi vs Punjab State Electricity Board, &#8230; on 9 May, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2409 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nSohan Singh Sodhi\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPunjab State Electricity Board, Patiala\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha &amp; Markandey Katju\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO.    2409                 2007<br \/>\n[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.  21020 of 2006]<\/p>\n<p>S.B. SINHA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>    1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>    2.\tThis Appeal is directed against the judgment and Order dated<br \/>\n31.3.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in<br \/>\nR.S.A. No. 4871\/2003 dismissing an appeal arising from a judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 24.4.2003 of the learned A.D.J., Patiala setting aside the<br \/>\njudgment and order of the trial judge dated 7.2.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>    3.\tThe basic facts of the case are not in dispute.  Appellant was<br \/>\nappointed as a lineman on 8.8.1964.    He was promoted to the post of Junior<br \/>\nEngineer on 15.3.1974.   He was not a diploma holder.   Respondent Board<br \/>\nwhich is constituted in terms of Section 15 of the The Electricity (Supply)<br \/>\nAct, 1948 and incorporated under Section 12 thereof provided for scale of<br \/>\npay on the basis of the qualifications held by the incumbents.   One Ravinder<br \/>\nKumar who was a non-diploma holder filed a suit questioning the purported<br \/>\ndiscrimination in promotion of Lineman to Line Superintendent between<br \/>\ndiploma holder linemen vis.-`-vis. non diploma holder linemen.\n<\/p>\n<p>     4.\tThe matter came up before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3341 and<br \/>\n3342 of 1983, Punjab  State Electricity Board, Patiala &amp; Anr. etc.  v<br \/>\nRavinder Kumar Sharma and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 367 wherein this<br \/>\nCourt held:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;8. The only issue raised in this appeal is whether<br \/>\ndefendant 1, that is, the Punjab State Electricity<br \/>\nBoard, is competent to discriminate between<br \/>\ndiploma holders and non-diploma holders Line Men<br \/>\nforming the common cadre of Line Men having a<br \/>\ncommon seniority list in promoting these line men<br \/>\non the basis of quota fixed by the order of the State<br \/>\nElectricity Board even though the requisite<br \/>\nqualification for promotion for Line Man to the post<br \/>\nof Line Superintendent is either the holding of<br \/>\ndiploma or certificate for electrical engineering from<br \/>\na recognised institute or the non-diploma holders<br \/>\nhaving passed one and half year&#8217;s course in the trade<br \/>\nof Electrician\/Line Man\/ Wire Man from recognised<br \/>\nIndustrial Training Institute and are matriculates and<br \/>\nhave worked for four years as Line Man<br \/>\ncontinuously and immediately before promotion, as<br \/>\nhas been provided by the office order No.<br \/>\n97\/ENG\/BET\/G-33 dated 22-10-1968.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     5.\tThe only issue which was raised before this Court was as to whether,<br \/>\nthe Punjab State Electricity Board could make any discrimination for the<br \/>\npurpose of promotion between diploma holder and non-diploma holders on<br \/>\nthe basis of quota fixed by the Order of the State Electricity Board even<br \/>\nthough the requisite qualification for promotion from line man to the line<br \/>\nsuperintendent is either the holding of the Diploma or Certificate of<br \/>\nElectrical Engineering from a recognized institute or having passed 1= year<br \/>\ncourse in Electrical Trades of Electrician\/Lineman\/Wireman.\n<\/p>\n<p>     6.\tThe claim of Ravinder Kumar was based on a circular letter issued by<br \/>\nthe respondent Board which was considered by this Court in the said<br \/>\ndecision in the following terms:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;11.\tThis observation applies with full force to the<br \/>\npresent case, and it has been rightly held by the High<br \/>\nCourt of Punjab and Haryana that the promotion of<br \/>\ndefendants 3 to 7 who are junior to the plaintiff-<br \/>\nrespondent from Line Man to the post of Line<br \/>\nSuperintendent is wholly bad and discriminatory and<br \/>\ndirected that the petitioner be deemed to have been<br \/>\npromoted to the post of Line Superintendent from the<br \/>\ndate the said defendants 3 to 7 had been promoted<br \/>\nfrom Line Man to Line Superintendent.  In our<br \/>\nconsidered opinion there is no infirmity in the<br \/>\njudgment of the High Court affirming the judgment<br \/>\nand decree of the Courts below and we agree with the<br \/>\nreasonings and conclusions arrived at by the Courts<br \/>\nbelow. The two appeals on special leave are,<br \/>\ntherefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.<br \/>\n5000\/- to be paid by the appellant of C.A. No. 3341 of<br \/>\n1983 to respondent 1.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    7.\tWe may, however, notice that the matter came up before a three<br \/>\njudges Bench of this Court in P. Murugesan &amp; Ors. v State of Tamil Nadu &amp;<br \/>\nOrs. [(1993) 2 SCC 340] wherein Ravinder Kumar (supra) was specially<br \/>\noverruled relying inter alia on a decision of a Constitution Bench of this<br \/>\nCourt in State of Jammu and Kashmir v Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors. [1974<br \/>\n(1) SCC 19].\n<\/p>\n<p>    8.\tIt was categorically held therein:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;19. The learned counsel for the respondents relied<br \/>\nupon the decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/231440\/\">Punjab State Electricity Board v.<br \/>\nRavinder Kumar Sharma<\/a> , a decision rendered by a<br \/>\nBench comprising A.P. Sen and B.C. Ray, JJ. The<br \/>\ncategory of linemen in the service of the Punjab State<br \/>\nElectricity Board comprised both diplomaholders and<br \/>\nothers who may be referred to as non-diplomaholders.<br \/>\nThey constituted one single category having a<br \/>\ncommon seniority list. By means of the rules issued<br \/>\nunder the proviso to Article 309, a quota was<br \/>\nprescribed for diplomaholders, the result of which was<br \/>\nthat diplomaholders who were far junior to the non-<br \/>\ndiplomaholders were promoted ignoring the non-<br \/>\ndiplomaholders. The rule was held to be bad by the<br \/>\nlearned Subordinate Judge, Patiala. On appeal, the<br \/>\nAdditional District Judge, Patiala affirmed the<br \/>\njudgment. It was affirmed by the High Court as well.<br \/>\nThe matter was brought to this Court. This Court<br \/>\naffirmed the judgment of the High Court. A perusal of<br \/>\nthe judgment shows that the attention of the Bench<br \/>\nwas not drawn either to T.N. Khosa  or to other<br \/>\ndecisions. Reference was made only to the<br \/>\nobservations in Shujat Ali  quoted hereinbefore and it<br \/>\nwas held that the distinction made between the<br \/>\ndiplomaholders and non-diplomaholders was<br \/>\ndiscriminatory and bad. Apart from the distinction on<br \/>\nfacts between that case and the case before us, it is<br \/>\nevident that non-consideration of T.N. Khosa  and<br \/>\nother decisions relevant under the subject has led to<br \/>\nthe laying down of a proposition which seems to run<br \/>\ncounter to T.N. Khosa. With great respect to the<br \/>\nlearned Judges who decided that case, we are unable<br \/>\nto accept the broad proposition flowing from the<br \/>\ncase.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    9.\tThe learned Trial Judge relied on the decision of Ravinder Kumar<br \/>\n(supra) in holding that as both the plaintiff-appellant and Ravinder Kumar<br \/>\nare non-diploma holders and belong to the same cadre, the appellant could<br \/>\nnot have been discriminated against.  The First Appellate Court, however,<br \/>\nrelied on the decision of three Judges Bench of this Court in P. Murugesan<br \/>\n(supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>    10.\tMr. Gurnam Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellant would inter alia contend that as the said Ravinder Kumar Sharma<br \/>\nis junior to the appellant, the action on the part of the respondent which is a<br \/>\nState within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India not to<br \/>\ngrant the same scale of pay is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n<p>    11.\tThe power of State Electricity Board to issue circulars in exercise of<br \/>\nits powers under Section 79(c) of the The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 is<br \/>\nnot in dispute.   It has the power to frame regulations. If it can frame<br \/>\nregulations, in absence of any regulations, issuance of executive orders is<br \/>\npermissible in law.  The power of framing regulations prescribing conditions<br \/>\nof service of its employees appointed by the Board in terms of Section 15 of<br \/>\nthe Act cannot be disputed.  Thus, in absence of any rules or regulations<br \/>\ngoverning the service conditions of its employees, issuance of administrative<br \/>\norder is permissible in law vide Meghalaya State Electricity Board and<br \/>\nAnother v Jagadindra Arjun [(2001) 6 SCC 446].\n<\/p>\n<p>    12.\tThe circular issued by the Board provided for parity in the scale of<br \/>\npay in the induction post and not on a higher post.  The said circular,<br \/>\ntherefore, has no application in this case.  The jurisdiction of the Board to<br \/>\nlay down different scales of pay for the employees on the basis of<br \/>\neducational qualification per se is not discriminated. {See Triloki Nath<br \/>\nKhosa (supra),  See also State of Punjab and Another v Kuldip Singh and<br \/>\nAnother  [(2002) 5 SCC 756] }.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tIn P. Murugesan (supra), it was clearly held:-<br \/>\n&#8220;.Looked at from this broad angle, it may appear there<br \/>\nis some force in what the respondents contend viz., that<br \/>\nonce the graduate engineers and diplomaholder engineers<br \/>\nconstitute one class, perform same duties and discharge<br \/>\nsame responsibilities, placing a restriction on the<br \/>\n~diplomaholders alone (limiting their chances of<br \/>\npromotion to one out of four promotions, as has been<br \/>\ndone by the impugned Amendment) is not justified but<br \/>\nthis may be a too simplistic way of looking at the issue.<br \/>\nWe cannot fail to take note of the fact that right from<br \/>\n1974 i.e., since the decision of the Constitution Bench in<br \/>\nTriloki Nath Khosa 1 this Court has been holding<br \/>\nuniformly that even where direct recruits and promotees<br \/>\nare integrated into a common class, they could for<br \/>\npurposes of promotion to the higher cadre be classified<br \/>\non the basis of educational qualifications . &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>   14.\tNo doubt Ravinder Kumar was junior to the appellant but his case has<br \/>\nbecome final due to the decision in Ravinder Kumar (supra).   However, that<br \/>\ndecision has been overruled by a larger bench of this Court, and hence the<br \/>\nappellant before us can get no benefit from the fact that his junior has been<br \/>\npromoted.  Article 14 will have no application in such a case.\n<\/p>\n<p>   15.\tIn Government of W.B. v Tarun K. Roy &amp; Others [(2004) 1 SCC<br \/>\n347], a three judges Bench of this Court, noticing several other decisions<br \/>\nopined that parity in the pay cannot be claimed when the educational<br \/>\nqualification is different.\n<\/p>\n<p>   16.\tThere is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sohan Singh Sodhi vs Punjab State Electricity Board, &#8230; on 9 May, 2007 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2409 of 2007 PETITIONER: Sohan Singh Sodhi RESPONDENT: Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha &amp; Markandey Katju JUDGMENT: J U [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98142","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sohan Singh Sodhi vs Punjab State Electricity Board, ... on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sohan Singh Sodhi vs Punjab State Electricity Board, ... on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-08T14:04:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sohan Singh Sodhi vs Punjab State Electricity Board, &#8230; on 9 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-08T14:04:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1595,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007\",\"name\":\"Sohan Singh Sodhi vs Punjab State Electricity Board, ... on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-08T14:04:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sohan Singh Sodhi vs Punjab State Electricity Board, &#8230; on 9 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sohan Singh Sodhi vs Punjab State Electricity Board, ... on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sohan Singh Sodhi vs Punjab State Electricity Board, ... on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-08T14:04:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sohan Singh Sodhi vs Punjab State Electricity Board, &#8230; on 9 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-08T14:04:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007"},"wordCount":1595,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007","name":"Sohan Singh Sodhi vs Punjab State Electricity Board, ... on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-08T14:04:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-sodhi-vs-punjab-state-electricity-board-on-9-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sohan Singh Sodhi vs Punjab State Electricity Board, &#8230; on 9 May, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98142","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=98142"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98142\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}