Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010136932025 2025:GAU-AS:8666 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3668/2025 ABHIJIT BHATTACHARJEE S/O- LATE RANABIR BHATTACHARJEE, R/O- VILLAGE -,RAMKRISHNAPUR, P.O- TITAGURI, DIST-KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 OTHERS REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, POWER (ELECTRICITY) DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM 2:THE DEPUTY MANAGER KOKRAJHAR ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION APDCL P.O P.S AND DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 3:THE SDO KOKRAJHAR ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION APDCL P.O P.S AND DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 4:RAJIB BHATTACHARJEE R/O- VILLAGE - RAMKRISHNAPUR P.O- TITAGURI DIST-KOKRAJHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B DEORI, MR A KHANIKAR,MR G BHARADWAJ Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the electricity connection in the property, which was in possession of the petitioner had been disconnected on 01.08.2022 by the APDCL. The petitioner’s application for restoration of the electricity connection, vide representation dated 06.08.2022, has however not been decided by the APDCL. He accordingly prays that a direction should be issued to the APDCL, to take a decision on the petitioner’s application dated 06.08.2022 for restoration of electricity. 2. Mr. G. Bokalial, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. B. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 & 3 submit that the petitioner had prayed for restoration of his electricity in Misc.(J) Case No.05/2023 arising out of T.S. 03/2023. However, Misc.(J) Case No.05/2023 was rejected by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kokrajhar, vide order dated 09.10.2023. Further, there is no proof as to who is in possession of the said property, in which the petitioner prays for restoration of electricity. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 4. On a perusal of the contents of the writ petition, it shows that there is an ownership dispute with regard to the title of the land in which the building is situated, as the petitioner and his brothers are fighting over the said land. It is in that respect that T.S. 03/2023 has been filed and which is pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kokrajhar. As can be seen from the Page No.# 3/4 order dated 09.10.2023 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.05/2023, the petitioner’s application for restoration of electricity connection has been rejected. The relevant portion of the order dated 09.10.2023 is reproduced hereinbelow, as follows : “....... Be it noted that both the parties are asked to appear in the court physically but they did not comply the order of the court nor show any reason for their absence. A report is called from Defendant no.16, the Deputy Manager, APDCL regarding disconnection of electricity from the residence of the Plaintiff. The Defendant submitted his report stating that connection that existed in the house of Abhijit Bhattacharjee was provided under Prime Minister's Flagship Programme "Din Dayal Upadhaya Gram Jyoti Yojona" in which connection was provided only on the basis of I/D proof and address proof. It is also reported that a complaint was received by one Rajeev Bhattacharjee who claimed to be the owner of the land and on the basis of that complaint the electricity supply was disconnected. On perusal of Injunction petition, I find that the Petitioner prayed to direct the defendant no.16 to give electric connection in the name of Ranabir Bhattacharjee. But the record shows that Ranabir Bhattacharjee is the Predecessor of the Plaintiff Petitioner who has already expired. It appears to me that Petitioner prayed for directing the APDCL to restore/give electric connection in the name of a dead person, which is absolutely not maintainable. Therefore, in light of above discussion it appears to me that there is no prima- facie case in favour of the Plaintiff to grant temporary mandatory injunction as claimed by the petitioner u/o 39 Rule 182 CPC. Hence, petition for the temporary Injunction is hereby rejected. The Misc. Case is disposed off accordingly.” 5. The above clearly shows that the Civil Court has rejected the petitioner’s application for restoration of electricity in favour of a dead person. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, praying for restoration of electricity, without making any prayer for setting aside the order dated 09.10.2023 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.05/2023, which has attained finality as on date. Unless a challenge is made to the order dated 09.10.2023 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.05/2023, there is no question of Page No.# 4/4 considering the petitioner’s prayer. On the other hand, in the case of Radhey Shyam & Another vs. Chhabi Nath & Others, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423, the Supreme Court has held that judicial orders are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The same can be challenged by way of a statutory appeal or under Article 227. 6. In the present case, the petitioner has indirectly put a challenge to the order passed by the Civil Court in Misc.(J) Case No.05/2023 by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is not allowed as per the decision of the Supreme Court, as indicated above. 7. In view of the above reasons, the present writ petition not being maintainable, the same is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant