Manish Chandra Jaiswal vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Manish Chandra Jaiswal vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order to continue till next date of hearing; writ petition to be listed fresh on 21st May, 2026; power corporation to answer on the adjourned date.

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any provision in law enabling the power corporation to act as it has done, purportedly in accordance with the rules, so as to deprive the petitioner of his livelihood guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by drawing the electric lines over/near his retail outlet. +1 more

Court's answer

The court observed that had the electric lines been there, the petitioner would not have been able to get clearance for setting up the RO, hence his contention and grievance that drawing the electric lines will cause closure of the RO.

Key takeaways

The court noted the conflict between rule 80(2)(a) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 relied on by the power corporation and the requirements necessary for establishment of an RO and compliance with the latter for the RO established.obiter¶¶17
The court directed the power corporation to answer on the adjourned date whether there is any provision in law to act as it has done, purportedly in accordance with the rules, to deprive a person of his livelihood guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, leaving the point open.obiter¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arindam Sinha & Satya Veer Singh, JJ.), interim order dated 06.05.2026 in Writ-C No. 11999 of 2026: Petitioner, a dealer of a retail outlet (RO), sought restraint against the distribution company installing an 11,000-volt transmission line over the RO, contending it would result in closure of the outlet. The power corporation relied on rule 80(2)(a), Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 (1.2 metre clearance for high voltage lines up to and including 11,000 volts), having fixed iron angles on poles and shifted the wires to run over the road during pendency. The court noted the tension between the rule and the requirements necessary for establishment of, and compliance by, an RO dispensing flammable motor spirit, observing that the petitioner could not have obtained clearance had the lines existed. The power corporation was directed to answer on the adjourned date whether any provision of law permitted action depriving a person of livelihood guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g), Constitution of India; the court observed it could take further remedial measures to draw the lines a safe distance from the RO. Interim order continued; matter listed fresh on 21st May, 2026.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 11999 of 2026

Manish Chandra Jaiswal

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Narendra Kumar Tiwari

Court No. - 29

HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

Petitioner had on 30th March, 2026 moved this Court to contend he is engaged as dealer of a retail outlet (RO). The distribution company is installing transmission wire carrying 11,000 KV of electricity over the RO. He is seeking direction upon the distribution company, restraining them from installing the transmission line, which will result in closure of the RO. Mr. Lal Chandra Mishra, learned advocate appears on his behalf.

Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned advocate Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 5 (the power corporation). He hands up his instruction dated 2nd May, 2026. From it we see, iron angles have been fixed on to the electric poles and the wires shifted to now drawn over the road.

Mr. Mishra relies on rule 80(2)(a) in Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. He submits, for high voltage lines up to and including 11,000 volts, required clearance is 1.2 meters from nearest conductor and any part of a building. As such, there has been compliance with the rules.

The attachment of iron angles to project the electric wires above the road, to create regulated distance between them and boundary wall of the RO has resulted in the wires being drawn over the road itself. This has been done during pendency of the writ petition. The rule is being relied upon for purpose of us construing boundary wall of the RO as a part of building. We are more concerned with the RO dispensing flammable motor spirit, requiring adherence to location of it away from any potential danger of

WRIC No. 11999 of 2026

2

causing fire. Had the electric lines been there, petitioner would not have been able to get clearance for setting up the RO. Hence, his contention and grievance that drawning the electric lines will cause closure of the RO. So we see, on the one hand there is rule 80(2)(a) and on the other, requirements necessary for establishment of an RO and compliance with the latter for the RO established.

The power corporation is to answer on adjourned date on whether there is any provision in law to act as it has done, purportedly in accordance with the rules, to deprive a person of his livelihood guaranteed under article 19(1)(g) in the Constitution of India. Of course, the power corporation having exhibited expeditious conduct of taking remedial measure, can take further remedial measure to remove the lines, as to be drawn a safe distance from the RO.

List as fresh on 21st May, 2026. The interim order to continue till next date of hearing.

May 6, 2026 sailesh

(Arindam Sinha,J.)

(Satya Veer Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad