HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10888 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Raj Karan Singh on behalf of respondent No.8 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following main prayers:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. Parties concerned to provide and continue the electricity supply on the electricity connection no. 5842091244 of 05 K.W. installed in the aforesaid house of petitioner in the interest of justice. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. Parties concerned to not harass the petitioner and also take necessary action into the matter residing his grievances raised in his application contained in Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition in the interest of justice. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. Parties concerned to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition expeditiously within the stipulated time as provided by this Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Durgendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Aprajita Bansal, Neerav Chitravanshi Shadashiv Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy U.P. Lko. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) Hon'ble court in interest of justice." 4. It appears that the petitioner sold his property to respondent No.8 but averments in the writ petition indicate that the entire consideration was not paid by respondent No.8 to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.8 vehemently denies the said statements made in the writ petiiton. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of electricity department has provided documents which indicate that the petitioner had filed an application for permanent disconnection of electricity. The respondent No.8 has also filed an application wherein the respondent No.8 has stated that since the property has been sold to him, the electricity connection should not be restored to the petitioner. 7. From perusal of above factual matrix, it is clear that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the present writ petition hence we are of the view that under these circumstances, we are not in a position to pass any order wherein facts are disputed. However, the Electricity Department is directed to verify the signatures of the petitioner in the application for permanent disconnection of electricity as the petitioner submits that he has never made such an application for permanent disconnection. Accordingly, if it is found that the signature is mismatched, the Electricity Department is directed to reject the said permanent disconnection application and restore the electricity supply to the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. November 11, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/- WRIC No. 10888 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench