2025:HHC:20051 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10254 of 2025 Decided on: 26.06.2025 Chander Lekha … Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms Sugandh Verma, Advocate, vice Mr.Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Ms. Sugandh Verma, learned counsel, vice Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to provide the Service Electricity Line to the house of the petitioner after repairing the same by issuing a writ of mandamus. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to restore the service line of electricity to the house of the petitioner immediately as per previous service line by issuing a writ of mandamus.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:20051 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of the objection of the private respondents, the service electricity line is not being repaired/ provided to the premises of the petitioner. A perusal of the pleadings demonstrates that the reason as to why the private respondents are objecting to the said service electricity line is that the same is to pass overhead the property of the said respondents. 4. This Court is of the considered view that the private respondents cannot be forced to allow the service line to pass through their property for the benefit of the petitioner and the petitioner may search some other route for the electricity facility to be availed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the private respondents firstly allowed the petitioner to construct the house, but are now demanding hefty amount, i.e. Rs.3,00,000/-, to permit the service electricity line to be taken through their property. 6. Be that as it may, as this Court is of the considered view that no mandamus can be issued, as is being prayed for by the petitioner, by directing the respondent-Electricity Board to provide the service electricity line to the petitioner through the property of the private respondents, this petition is dismissed. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be however given liberty that if there is other 3 2025:HHC:20051 alternative remedy available to the petitioner, he may avail the same in accordance with law. The liberty, as prayed for, is granted. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 26, 2025 (Rishi)