1 2026:CGHC:15035 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1728 of 2021 1 - Surender Singh Chawla S/o Late Mahinder Singh Chawla, Aged About 60 Years R/o House 2/22, Govind Nagar, Pandri Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Supply Distribution Company Limited Through Executive Engineer, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Assistant Engineer, Cspdcl, Shastry Chowk, Zone, City Division, (Middle) Cspdcl, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bijay Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Satya Narayan Agrawal, Aged About 51 Years R/o. E-96 Devendra Nagar, Sector-5, Raipur, Proprietor Of Maharaj Gharana, Classic H-50, Pandri Textile Market, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Narender Singh Chawla, S/o Late Mahinder Singh Chawla, R/o. 5/5 Ravi Shankar Shukla Ward, Govind Nagar Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 For Petitioner : Ms. Neela Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. K. P. S. Gandhi, Advocate For Resp. Nos. 1 and 2 : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus order or directions to respondent no. 1 & 2 and passed the order for disconnection of electric supply from the said premises. (ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly further please to issue a direction and prohibited to the respondent no. 1 & 2 for further electric connection without submitted consent and authorization of all the persons/co-owners of the said promises. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the dispute pertains to Shop Plot No. 50 admeasuring 760 sq. ft. situated at Pandri Market, Raipur, which was originally allotted by the Raipur Development Authority under the Wholesale Cloth Market Scheme in the name of the petitioner’s mother, late Smt. Harbansh Kaur Chawla. Upon 3 her demise on 20.02.2014, followed by the death of the petitioner’s father, late Shri Mahinder Singh Chawla, on 16.09.2016, the said property was duly mutated in the joint names of the petitioner, Respondent No. 4 (his brother), and their sisters, namely Smt. Harvinder Kaur Saluja, Smt. Satnam Kaur, Smt. Satwant Kaur, and Smt. Manpreet Kaur, vide mutation order dated 27.01.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, without the consent or authorization of the other co-owners, executed a rental agreement dated 20.04.2017 in respect of the said shop, pursuant to which Respondent No. 3 started running a business under the name and style “Maharaj Gharana Classic Shop” and, on the basis of the said agreement and allegedly forged affidavits in the name of the deceased mother, obtained a three-phase electricity connection from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 26.12.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 09.10.2018 before Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, alleging fabrication of documents and unauthorized use of the premises. Upon inquiry, Respondent No. 2 found discrepancies in the documents submitted and issued notices, eventually disconnecting the electricity supply on 01.09.2018. Subsequently, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted replies denying wrongdoing, but the same were rejected. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 again applied for a fresh electricity connection on 24.10.2018, which was initially declined for want of proof of legal ownership. Respondent No. 3 then approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4 3101/2018, which was disposed of on 13.08.2019 with a direction that electricity connection may be granted subject to compliance with the requirements under the Electricity Supply Code, particularly submission of proof of ownership or a no-objection certificate from the owner. However, the petitioner alleges that in disregard of the said order and applicable regulations, Respondent No. 2 subsequently granted a fresh electricity connection to Respondent No. 3 on the basis of the same disputed and allegedly forged documents, leading to the filing of the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises in question is a jointly owned property belonging to the petitioner, Respondent No. 4, and four other co-owners, and therefore, no single co-owner has the authority to unilaterally deal with the property to the exclusion of others. It is contended that the rental agreement dated 20.04.2017 (Annexure P/2), purportedly executed by Respondent No. 4 in favour of Respondent No. 3, has been entered into without the consent, authorization, or knowledge of the petitioner and the remaining co-owners. As such, the said agreement is legally unsustainable and cannot be treated as a valid document in the eyes of law, particularly in light of Regulation 4.15(ii)(b) of the Electricity Supply Code, 2011, which mandates production of proof of ownership or a valid no- objection certificate from the owner(s) in case the applicant is a 5 tenant. It is further submitted that this Court, while disposing of the earlier writ petition vide order dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure P/9), did not issue any direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant electricity connection on the basis of such an incomplete and unauthorized agreement. Rather, the Court had clearly observed that the grant of electricity connection would be subject to fulfillment of the requirements prescribed under the Electricity Supply Code. Learned counsel contends that despite this, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have acted in contravention of the said order by granting electricity connection to Respondent No. 3 on the basis of the very same defective and disputed documents. It is also submitted that the petitioner, along with other co-owners, had already raised objections before the concerned authorities against the grant of electricity connection in the said premises, bringing to their notice the illegality and lack of consent. However, the authorities failed to consider such objections and proceeded to install the electric meter, thereby acting arbitrarily and in disregard of the rights of the co-owners. Learned counsel further argues that in a case of joint ownership, no single co-owner can independently execute a rental agreement conferring rights upon a third party without the concurrence of other co-owners, and any such unilateral act cannot create a valid basis for grant of electricity connection. Therefore, the action of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in installing the electric meter in favour of Respondent No. 3 is illegal, unjust, and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity 6 Supply Code, 2011, as well as violative of the petitioner’s constitutional and legal rights. It is thus prayed that the impugned action be set aside by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/CSPDCL submits that the electricity connection has been granted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code, 2011 and on the basis of documents furnished by the applicant. It is contended that the distribution company is not required to adjudicate inter se ownership disputes between private parties and is only concerned with compliance of procedural requirements for grant of connection. It is further submitted that since the applicant had produced the necessary documents, the connection was lawfully sanctioned, and therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the answering respondents. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the dispute raised in the present writ petition essentially arises out of inter se rights between co-owners of a property and the validity of a rental agreement allegedly executed without the consent of all co- owners. The petitioner has questioned the action of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in granting electricity connection in favour of Respondent No. 3 on the basis of such agreement, alleging violation of the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code, 2011. 7 6. From the facts on record, it is evident that the property in question is jointly owned by the petitioner, Respondent No. 4, and other co- owners. The petitioner disputes the authority of Respondent No. 4 to execute the rental agreement in favour of Respondent No. 3 and has also alleged fabrication of documents. These issues, in the considered opinion of this Court, involve disputed questions of fact relating to title, possession, and validity of documents, which cannot be effectively adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. So far as the role of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/CSPDCL is concerned, it is well settled that the electricity distribution company is not required to adjudicate complex civil disputes between private parties regarding ownership or tenancy rights. Its obligation is confined to examining whether the applicant has complied with the procedural requirements under the applicable regulations. 8. In the present case, it appears that the connection has been granted on the basis of documents submitted by the applicant, and no clear case of statutory violation warranting interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. Further, the relief sought by the petitioner, namely, disconnection of electricity supply and a direction restraining the respondents from granting connection without consent of all co-owners, is intrinsically linked with adjudication of civil rights and disputes between private parties. 8 Such reliefs cannot ordinarily be granted by issuance of a writ of mandamus, particularly when efficacious alternative remedies are available to the petitioner under the appropriate civil forum. Accordingly, from perusal of the reliefs sought by the petitioner, it appears that petitioner is seeking relief which cannot be granted by this Court as writ of mandamus. As such, this Court is of the view that this petition cannot be entertained. 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge