Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10428-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1595 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd. Ashfaq Khan @ Ashfaq Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aprajita Bansal Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Heard. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the premises in question where an electricity connection was installed, however, the erstwhile owner, as informed by Ms. Shreya Pahva, holding brief of Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel for the Electricity Corporation, sold out the house in favour of the opposite party No.4 and the electricity connection which was in the name of earlier owner has been transferred in the name of opposite party No.4. The petitioner on the other hand claims occupancy of the said premises but his electricity connection has been disconnected on 07.02.2025, hence this writ petition seeking restoration of the electricity connection. The electricity connection to the premises have been disconnected on an application by the opposite party No.4 to the Electricity Department, who had applied for permanent disconnection of the electricity. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that this has been done only to harass the petitioner, who is in occupation of the premises. The counsel for the Electricity Corporation says that if indemnity bond is submitted by the petitioner alongwith proof of possession and he is actually found to be in possession then a connection can be granted in the name of petitioner. The parties' counsel also refer to point 4.4 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 in this regard. Considering the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the opposite party No.4 is dispensed with. Let the petitioner submit an application before the opposite party Nos.2 or 3, as the case may be within three days seeking electricity connection alongwith the indemnity bond and proof of possession and the same shall be decided within one week thereafter by the concerned authority. It will be open for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to get an inspection conducted to ascertain the possession of the petitioner in premises in question. In this process, the opposite party No.4 shall also be heard by the opposite party Nos.2 and 3, however, if it is found that there is no legal impediment in granting the connection to the petitioner based on the indemnity bond and his possession, is proved, then the same shall be granted. This, however, shall be without prejudice to the rights, if any, of the opposite party No.4 with regard to the premises in question or the petitioner i.e. it shall be open for him to initiate such proceedings against the petitioner as he may desire and as may be permissible in law with regard to his possession, if it is so, of the premises. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be provided to the parties on payment of usual charges today, if possible. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench