Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138818-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25173 of 2025 Petitioner :- Om Prakash Chaursiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Udit Chandra,Vibhu Rai,Vinay Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, prayer of his client is for concerned authority being directed to permanently disconnect electricity connection no.3687481000, installed in hotel O.K. International. Mr. Vibhu Rai, learned advocate appears on behalf of private respondent no.6 and raises preliminary objection on handing-up order dated 17th June, 2025 as corrected by subsequent order dated 19th June, 2025 in his client's Writ-C no.19779 of 2025. He submits, said writ petition is pending and by aforesaid orders status quo was directed. Paragraph 4 in order dated 17th June, 2025 (supra) is reproduced below. "4. Till then, status quo with regard to the property in dispute shall remain stayed. The correction by subsequent order dated 19th June, 2025 (supra) is reproduced below. "This correction application has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner praying for correcting phrase "status quo regard to functioning of the hotel shall be maintained" in place of "status quo regard to the property in dispute shall remain stayed" in last paragraph of the order dated 17.06.2025." Mr. Singh submits, license for functioning of the hotel stood cancelled prior to 17th June, 2025. Hence, his client's petition for mandamus is maintainable. Mr. Raj Mohan Upadhyay, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. Mr. Nitesh Patel, learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4 (the electricity company). On query he submits, the connection subsists. Proceeding to adjudicate on petitioner's prayer for mandamus for disconnection of electricity would amount to interfering with the order of status quo. As such, it is irrelevant as to whether the license stood cancelled prior to said status quo order dated 17th June, 2025 (supra). Petitioner must find his remedy in the pending writ petition by contesting it. We will not be drawn into ascertaining the position on facts, in respect of which the status quo was directed. The writ petition is dismissed. The dismissal will not prevent petitioner from filing afresh on subsequent event of the status quo order vacated/said writ petition dismissed. Order Date :- 14.8.2025/Ashutosh (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Prashant Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad