Dismissed¶18

Bakreedul v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2026WRIC/10376/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bakreedul v. State of U.P. and 3 Others, WRIT - C No. 10376 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, decided March 19, 2026 (Arun Kumar, J.). Keywords: electricity dues; One Time Settlement (OTS); application for permanent disconnection; continued billing after OTS; Permanent Lok Adalat, Kaushambi; Complaint No.1 of 2022; liberty to realise Rs.52,540.89/- as final settlement of outstanding dues; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show that the petitioner's husband had actually made any application for permanent disconnection in 2017 when the OTS was entered; as such, the finding recorded by the Permanent Lok Adalat could not be disputed by the counsel for the petitioner by any material on record. ¶16

Bakreedul vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10376 of 2026

Bakreedul

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Alok Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Narendra Kumar Tiwari

¶9

Court No. - 36

¶10

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4.

¶12

The present petition has been filed challenging the award of Permanent Lok Adalat, Kaushambi, dated 11.02.2026, partly allowing the Complaint No.1 of 2022.

¶13

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the electricity connection in the name of petitioner's husband was settled under One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme, pursuant to which, her husband deposited a sum of Rs.55,000/- on 16.05.2017 and Rs.37,428/- on 15.06.2017 and got the electricity connection permanently disconnected. Even then, the respondent nos.2 to 4 are sending electricity bills to petitioner. The Permanent Lok Adalat after considering the claim of the petitioner has recorded a finding that the husband of petition under OTS Scheme got his outstanding settled with respondent nos.2 to 4, however, no application for permanent disconnection of electricity connection was made, as such, the petitioner alongwith her husband continued to use the electrical energy even after 15.06.2017 till March, 2019. The Permanent Lok Adalat has partly allowed the claim of petitioner giving liberty to respondent nos.2 to 4 for realizing a sum of Rs.52,540.89/- as final settlement towards outstanding dues against the petitioner.

¶14

WRIC No. 10376 of 2026

¶15

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the husband of petitioner had actually made any application for permanent disconnection for electricity connection in 2017 when OTS was entered between him and respondent nos.2 to 4. As such, the finding recorded by the Permanent Lok Adalat could not be disputed by the counsel for the petitioner by any material on record.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat, dated 11.02.2026.

¶18

The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

(Arun Kumar,J.)

¶20

March 19, 2026 Ashok Kr.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bakreedul v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bakreedul v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digvijay Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjit Singh Gurjar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Baran vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajaram Giri vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Bhawna Bharti vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shri Kishan Pal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others