IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 14630 of 2024 Decided on 15th July, 2025 Suman Thakur …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 5 and 6. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sugandh Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.7. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- i. “That Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue the writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the basic amenities of water supply and electricity connection of petitioner with immediate effect. 2 ii. That the cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 2. When this case was listed before the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench on 18.12.2024, the following order was passed:- “Pursuant to order dated 4.12.2024, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board, have placed on record instructions dated 13.12.2024 and 17.12.2024 issued under the signatures of Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti Division, Rajgarh and Executive Engineer, Electrical Division Rajgarh, perusal whereof reveals that pursuant to request made by one Smt. Narendra Kumari, who claims herself to be owner of the property in question, Jal Shakti Vibhag and Electricity Board initiated action for disconnection of water and electricity connections, which were originally allotted in the name of Mr. Brij Lal, who otherwise happens to be husband of the petitioner Suman Thakur. Though Jal Shakti Vibhag was unable to disconnect the water connection on account of objection raised by petitioner herein but electricity connection given to the house of Smt. Suman Thakur was ultimately disconnected with the intervention of SDO, Rajgarh. It emerges from the aforesaid communication placed on record that Suman Thakur is the first wife of Brij Lal who after having contracted second marriage with Smt. Bimla Devi sold the property in favour of Smt. Narendera Kumari, who besides initiating eviction proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, also made application to the Electricity department and Jal Shakti Vibhag, for disconnection of electricity and 3 water connection from the premises in question on the pretext that she wants to demolish the building. Since it clearly emerges from the pleadings that prior to selling of the property in question in favour of Smt. Narendera by late Sh. Brij Lal, petitioner herein being wife of Sh. Brij Lal had been staying in the house of the above named person coupled with the fact that Smt. Narendera has already initiated proceedings under the Act for eviction, there appears to be no justification for disconnection of the water and electricity disconnection. In view of the above, this Court while directing the official respondents to file reply, deems it fit to direct that till the next date of hearing, electricity and water connection of the house of the petitioner be restored immediately, who is otherwise at liberty to file appropriate application in proceedings initiated against her under the Act at the behest of the respondents. Notice be also issued to respondent No.7 on taking steps within one week, enabling the Registry to issue notice returnable for 25.3.2025.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the said order of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench, the basic amenities stand restored at the premises of the petitioner. He has further informed the Court that the issue between the petitioner and the private respondent is that, whereas, the petitioner is the first wife of deceased Sh. Brij Lal, the private respondent also claims herself to be the wife of Sh. Brij Lal. He further submits that the property in issue was wrongly sold by the deceased Sh. Brij Lal to the private respondent, which 4 could not have been so done. He stated that the private respondent has filed an eviction petition against the petitioner, but, therein, the defence taken by the petitioner is that, she is the owner of the premises in issue. 4. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute in between the petitioner and the private respondent, is best left for the appropriate forum to decide the same and it would not be in the interest of any of the parties, if this Court makes any observation in this regard. Accordingly, these proceedings are disposed of with the direction that the basic amenities, which have been restored to the petitioner, shall continue subject to the payment of the consumption charges thereof by the petitioner to the authority concerned and also subject to any further order that may be passed by the learned Courts/authorities before whom the parties are presently agitating their rights. 5. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the Electricity Board has pointed out that as the electricity connection in the premises of the petitioner is in the name of the private respondent, therefore, it would be difficult for the 5 said Board to accept the electricity charges from the petitioner. This Court does not concur with the submissions so made for the reason that once this Court has ordered the restoration of the amenities, then, the acceptance of the consumption charges by the Electricity Board shall not be in derogation of any clause of Electricity Supply Code as the acceptance thereof by the Electricity Board shall be in compliance to the directions passed by this Court. However, it is clarified that as far as the dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent is concerned, this Court has not made any observation qua the merit thereof and because Court has ordered the restoration of the basic amenities said order it shall not create any equity in favour of the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 15, 2025 (Vinod)