Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 149056 (ALL)

PUSHPA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF ENERGY LKO. AND 4 OTHERS

WRIC/6406/2025 · 2025-07-10

Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39464-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6406 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pushpa Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Energy Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Gopal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aprajita Bansal Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Heard. By way of this petition the petitioner has mainly prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned Office Memorandum dated 26.06.2025 passed by the opposite party No. 3/Executive Engineer Electricity Urban Distribution Section University Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Sinha Market Nirala Nagar Lesa Trans Gomti, Lucknow. She has further prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 to provide the domestic electricity connection in her name in her House No. - 495/79, (219) Maya Nagar Daliganj District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Pin 226020 in pursuance of the order dated 02.03.2024 passed by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Lucknow, contained as Annexure Nos. 1 and 5 to this writ petition. Counsel for the Electricity Corporation says that alongwith indemnity-bond occupancy proof such as Adhar Card was required to be submitted. On being confronted, learned counsel for the petitioner says that there is an order of the C.J.M. Lucknow dated 02.03.2024, which is proof of occupancy of the premises and as also her Adhar Card, copy of which was annexed with the application. Without going into this dispute as to whether these documents were annexed or not, let the petitioner supply these documents alongwith a fresh application for grant of electricity connection, to the opposite party No. 3, whereupon the opposite party No. 3 shall consider the matter and decided the same at the earliest, say within one month of its submission. It is, however, made clear that we have not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner about residence at the premises in question and the opposite party No. 3 can look into this aspect of the matter. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 10.7.2025 A.Nigam Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench