1 2026:CGHC:15588 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1403 of 2026 1 - Shailendra Singh Chouhaan S/o Ajit Kumar Singh Chouhaan Aged About 44 Years R/o L.I.G. 1239, Sector-8, Housing Board, Colony, Saddu, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Madhubala Devi Chouhan W/o Shailendra Singh Chouhaan Aged About 47 Years R/o L.I.G. 1239, Sector-8, Housing Board, Colony, Saddu, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (C.G.) Through Its Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Daganiya, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintending Engineer (Raipur City Circle) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Assistant Engineer (Daldal Seoni Zone) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Kiranlata Rathore W/o Shri J.P. Rathore Aged About 54 Years R/o A-6, Pankaj Vikram Apartment, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Petitioners : Mo. Naqeeb, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Adv. on advance copy {Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chadravanshi} Order on Board 06/04/2026 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs : 2 “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the Respondent Authorities to kindly provide electricity connection to the petitioners, in order to protect his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ and set aside the communication dated 09/02/2026 (Annexure-P/4) and further direct the Respondent Authorities to kindly take necessary action on the application (Annexure-P/1) made by the petitioners for new electricity connection (temporary or permanent) in accordance with law, in furtherance of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to provide the petitioners, immediately with electricity during pendency of this petition, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other relief/relief's which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also please be granted to the petitioners in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner No. 1 is in lawful possession of the house located at L.I.G. 1239, Sector-8, Housing Board, Colony, Saddu, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) where he is living alongwith his family peacefully since 2009. He further submits that petitioners came to in possession of the said house as tenant, subsequently, they purchased the said house from respondent No. 4, who is owner of aforesaid said house, but despite receiving sale consideration, respondent No. 4 is not executed registered sale deed in their favour, therefore, landlord-tenancy dispute arose between the parties and the application filed by respondent No. 4 (owner) was decided in her favour by Rent Control Authority, against which, appeal is pending before Rent Control Appellate 3 Tribunal, Raipur. He further submits that on account of said dispute, respondent No. 4 has pulled away the electricity meter and cut-down the electricity connection of the aforesaid house of petitioners in order to create pressure upon them in the year 2019, thereafter, the petitioners filed an application on 02.01.2021 (Annexure P-1) before respondent No. 3 to supply of electricity in the aforesaid house by providing electric connection in the name of petitioners, as the petitioners are the occupant of the aforesaid house, but respondent No. 3 vide Communication dated 9.2.2026 (Annexure P-4) has sought "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) from the landlord, or a direction from a competent court, for the purpose of providing an electricity connection to the said house petitioners. Hence, he prays that this petition may be admitted for hearing and as an interim relief, the respondents be directed to provide an immediate electricity connection to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 would submit that since there is dispute pertaining to the said house between petitioner and respondent No. 4, therefore, NOC was sought from the landlord, or a direction from a competent court for the purpose of providing an electricity connection to the petitioners. He further submits that there is an alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Permanent Lok Adalat at Raipur under Section 22(A)(b)(iii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for brevity, “Act, 1987”) for seeking suchrelief and hence, the petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy for redressal of their grievance. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, said electric connection of the subject house has been disconnected in the year 2021, but the petitioners did not file such petition at that time, rather instant petition is filed on 15.03.2026 whereas if their electric connection was disconnected in the year 2021, then the petitioners ought to have filed such a petition immediately after the disconnection 4 occurred. Further, if electric connection of petitioners has been disconnected and petitioners want to get re-connected electric line in the said house, then they may file application before Permanent Lok Adlalat, Raipur under Section 22(A)(b)(iii) of the Act, 1987, as Permanent Lok Adalat has been constituted for redressal of grievance of petitioners pertaining to public utility services. 6. Thus, since there is no urgency found in the instant petition to provide immediate electricity connection, as the electricity connection of the said house was disconnected in the year 2021, further there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioners to file application before Permanent Lok Adalat, Raipur under Section 22(A)(b)(iii) of the Act, 1987, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 7. In view of above discussion, this petition stands disposed of leaving liberty in favour of the petitioners to file appropriate application under the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1987. 8. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.04.07 18:07:00 +0530