Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 69420 (ALL)

RAVI DUTT BAJPAI v. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

WRIC/20895/2025 · 2025-07-06

Saurabh Dwivedi Registrar J Cpc, Y K Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106512-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20895 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ravi Dutt Bajpai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Achchhey Lal Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Usha Kiran Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. Mr. Achchhey Lal Tiwari, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, private respondent no.6 has wrongfully applied for disconnection of electricity connection. His client is co-tenant Private respondent no.5 is the landlord. Said respondents have aligned themselves against his client. Prayer is for interference and direction upon the supply company restraining it from disconnecting the supply. Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. Mr. Anubhav Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 4 (the supply company) and hands up order dated 20th February, 2025 made by co-ordinate Bench as well as copy of writ petition in Writ - C no.40989 of 2024 (Ravi Dutt Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), dismissed on said order. Said order dated 20th February, 2025 is reproduced below. "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anubhav Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner wishes to withdraw this writ petition. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn." Mr. Singh submits, he had appeared on behalf of the supply company before co- ordinate Bench. He had taken preliminary objection regarding locus standi. His point is, the connection stands in name of private respondent no.6, who had applied for disconnection. Prayer made in the dismissed as withdrawn writ petition has again been made in this writ petition. It therefore deserves to be dismissed, not only on point of locus standi but also as barred. There is substance in submissions made on behalf of the supply company. Petitioner has made same prayer as had been made in earlier writ petition withdrawn by him and dismissed by co-ordinate Bench on said order dated 20th February, 2025. Petitioner, in the circumstances, cannot agitate same grievance before the writ Court. He has to find his remedy. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Arun K. Singh (Arindam Sinha, J.) (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad