Disposed¶12

Mohit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025WRIC/41744/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, WRIT - C No. 41744 of 2025, decided November 26, 2025 (Saral Srivastava and Sudhanshu Chauhan, JJ.). Mohit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another. Tenant sought electricity connection in his name; application refused acceptance for want of landlady's consent; writ petition disposed of without merits with direction to Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-(I), Sadar Basti to decide fresh representation in accordance with law within one month. No statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file a fresh representation with certified copy of the order before respondent no.2-Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-(I), Sadar Basti within one month; respondent no.2 to consider and decide it in accordance with law within one month of receipt. ¶12

Mohit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 41744 of 2025

Mohit Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ashutosh Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Shrawan Kumar Tripathi

¶7

Court No. - 40

¶8

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Shrawan Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶10

The petitioner is a tenant of a shop situated in House No. 2265, Ward No. 6, Mohalla Malitola, Gandhi Nagar, District Basti. The petitioner applied for an electricity connection in his name before respondent no.2 on 28.10.2025, but the officials of the electricity department refused to accept the application form submitted by the petitioner, stating that an electricity connection cannot be provided in the absence of consent from the landlady. In respect of his grievance, the petitioner has submitted several representations to the respondent authority, but no heed has been paid to the same.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent no.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without adverting into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation alongwith certified copy of this order raising all his grievances before the respondent no.2-Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-(I), Sadar Basti within a period of one month from today. In case, any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with

¶13

WRIC No. 41744 of 2025

¶14

¶15

law within a period of one month thereafter from the date he receives the representation of the petitioner.

¶16

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

¶17

November 26, 2025

¶18

Gaurav

¶19