HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 29950 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The respondent no. 2 - Noida Power Company Limited has granted an electricity connection to the respondent no. 3 for supply of electricity to the Multi Storied Complex. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 are charging non electrical consumption bill from the petitioners who are the residents of the Multi Storied Complex. 4. The dispute is between the petitioners and the respondent nos. 4 and 5, who are the private companies, and therefore, the writ petition is not an appropriate remedy as this Court cannot issue writ, order or direction to a party which is not state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have alternative remedy of appeal under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashwaini Mishra, Dhruv Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mohd Umar Farooq, Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C., Jamil Ahamad Azmi, Mayank Gaurav, Tarun Agrawal Ganga Sagar Tewari And 9 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. In such view of the fact, the writ petition is misconceived as it involves a disputed question of fact inasmuch as whether the petitioners are liable to pay non electrical consumption charges or not. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. In case the petitioners prefer an appeal before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority/Competent Authority under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the same shall be considered on merits without entering into the question of limitation. October 14, 2025 Arif WRIC No. 29950 of 2025 2 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad