ANURAG SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. ENERGY LKO. AND 6 OTHERS
WRIC/10327/2025 · 2025-11-06
Alok Mathur, Prashant Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 182738 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 182738 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10327 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Gurusimran Kaur holding brief of Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had moved an application for obtaining a new electricity connection at the shop of the petitioner situated at House No.252, Vijay Nagar, Indra Lok Hydle Colony, Krishna Nagar, Lucknow and the same has been rejected by means of the impugned order wherein it has been stated that the application has been rejected on account of incorrect applicant details and applicant has not uploaded the NOC of the owner and landlord certificate as the dispute is pending before the court.
3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that all the required documents have been submitted by him but because there is a dispute with the landlord, the NOC of the landlord could not be submitted. He has further submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioner is ready and willing to submit his indemnity bond securing the payment of electricity charges but the said documents was never asked for by the respondents.
4. Ms. Gurusimran Kaur, learned counsel submits that in case the petitioner submitted the indemnity bond then there will be no difficulty in providing fresh electricity connection. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mukesh Sharma, Karuna Shanker Misra, Pawan Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Aprajita Bansal Anurag Shukla .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Lko. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s)
5. In light of the above, the petitioner is directed to deposit the indemnity bond as required by the respondents within next 48 hours and respondent No.4 is directed to provide a fresh electricity connection within two days thereafter in accordance with law.
6. The respondent No.4 was directed to ensure the compliance of this order.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. November 6, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/- WRIC No. 10327 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench