HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8022 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the State-respondents, Shri Manish Jauhari, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 5 and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner with following main prayers: "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the opposite parties to connect the electricity connection to the petitioner (tube well) within stipulated period. B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the opposite party No. 3 to decide the application dated 03.07.2025 moved by the petitioner within stipulated period contained as Annexure no. 5 to this writ petition." 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a farmer and is having some land in Village Pandari Nindura, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Barabanki. He applied for electricity connection of 8 horsepower for tube-well on the P.T.W. Portal of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited on 07.10.2024. Respondent No.3 wrote a letter to respondent No.4 for spot inspection and preparation of estimate cost upon the petitioner's connection. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 went to the spot and prepared project estimate cost of Rs.1,33,272/-. On 13.11.2024 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vikas Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manish Jauhari Mohd. Faheem .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner deposited Rs.1,40,336/- as is evident from the deposit receipt filed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. Respondent No.3 wrote a letter to the Assistant Engineer (Store) concerned for issuance of articles thereof. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 completed laying down of the electricity wire to the tube-well, however, the electricity connection has not been charged despite deposition of necessary cost for the same. The petitioner has again moved an application on 03.07.2025, but no heed was paid thereon. Hence this writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayers. 4. Shri Manish Jauhari, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 5, on the basis of instructions, says that estimated cost was on the basis of earlier route map prepared with regard to laying down of electricity wire for getting connection as applied for by the petitioner, however, after laying down of the electricity wire and poles, there was one person, who had objected and on account of which one pole could not be installed, as a result whereof electricity connection could not be given to the petitioner. 5. It has been submitted that in case the petitioner submits an alternate route map and is willing to bear additional cost as estimated by the respondents, necessary action shall be taken on his application at the earliest. 6. This writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to submit an alternate proposal within ten days from today to the respondents. The respondents shall thereafter do spot inspection and give revised estimate to the petitioner after adjusting the money already paid by the petitioner to them and if the petitioner makes payment as per revised estimate within ten days on receipt of such estimate, the respondents shall tie and charge the electricity line within a further period of eight weeks. August 25, 2025 Anupam S/- WRIC No. 8022 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench