Smt. Hansa Yadav vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko. and 7 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3070 of 2026

Smt. Hansa Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko. And 7 Others

¶7

n ers	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Shweta Yadav, Rajat Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Manish Jauhari, Aprajita Bansal, C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra, Shreyash Agrawal

¶8

Court No. - 3

¶9

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

¶10

An affidavit of service filed today in Court by the petitioner is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3 and Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.6 to 8.

¶12

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner has made the following main prayers:-

¶13

"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Distribution License Authorities) to exercise their statutory powers under the Electricity Act, 2003 and applicable UPERC Regulations and to ensure that electricity supply to the Petitioner's premises is not unlawfully withheld or manipulated by Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 acting as a deemed franchisee under the single-point electricity system.

¶14

b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing

¶15

WRIC No. 3070 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (Competent Authorities regulating Apartment Complex under U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and Societies Registration Act, 1860) to get their Orders dated 08.07.2025 and 16.10.2025 annexed as Annexure No.- P/13 and P/18 respectively, implemented under the light of Electricity Act, 2003 and applicable UPERC Regulations and to ensure that electricity supply to the Petitioner's premises is not unlawfully withheld or manipulated by Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8.

¶18

c. Issue notice to Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 and direct them to show cause before this Hon'ble Court as to under what authority of law they have withheld electricity recharge and supply of the Petitioner's premises, despite the binding Orders dated 08.07.2025 passed by the ViceChairman, Lucknow Development Authority and 16.10.2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow Mandal and UPERC guidelines and Tariff Orders passed under Electricity Act, 2003.

¶19

d. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 to immediately recharge and restore the electricity supply to the Petitioner's residential premises/Flat No. A- 101, Casa Greens Apartment, upon receipt of electricity recharge amount from the Petitioner, including the amount of Rs.3,000/- deposited on 02.10.2025 annexed as Annexure No.-P/19, and to ensure uninterrupted electricity supply to the Petitioner's premises.

¶20

e. Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 to refund or restore the amount of Rs.3,500/- illegally deducted from the Petitioner's electricity recharge amounts annexed as Annexure No.- P/ 15, either by direct refund or by adjustment in future electricity recharge.

¶21

f. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 from deducting, appropriating or adjusting any amount from electricity recharge payments for recovery of any alleged maintenance, renovation or other non-electricity dues in presence of two binding Orders dated 08.07.2025 and 16.10.2025 from Respondent No.4 and 5 respectively, annexed as Annexure No.- P/13 & P/18.

¶22

g. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the illegal actions, decisions and resolutions dated 25.05.2025 and 13.07.2025 annexed as Annexure No. P/9, of Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 whereby:

¶23

electricity recharge has been restricted only to particular days (Thursday and Sunday),

¶24

recharge has been limited to two recharges per flat per

¶25

WRIC No. 3070 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

month, and

¶28

electricity supply has been used as a coercive mechanism for recovery of alleged society dues.

¶29

h. Issue a Writ, Order or direction declaring that Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, acting through the Casa Greens Resident Welfare Association, have no authority in law to disconnect, withhold, restrict or interfere with electricity supply to individual flats for recovery of maintenance or other non-electricity dues, such action being contrary to the Electricity Act, 2003, UPERC Tariff Orders and the Uttar Pradesh Apartment Act, 2010.

¶30

i. Award exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the Petitioner or as this Hon'ble court may deem fit, for the illegal, arbitrary and high- handed actions of Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in unlawfully withholding electricity supply to the Petitioner's residential premises, which compelled the Petitioner and her family to vacate their home and incur substantial financial and personal hardship."

¶31

The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner is the owner of a flat in the Casa Greens Project. There also appears to be a dispute with regard to certain payments to be made by the petitioner to the Casa Greens Resident Welfare Association, being the respondent No.6. We have perused the letter dated May 22, 2025, wherein the Association has sought for a payment of Rs.10,000/- from the petitioner. It appears that for non-payment of the aforesaid amount, the electricity connection of the petitioner has been disconnected by the respondents No.6, 7 and 8. The respondent No.6, being the Casa Greens Resident Welfare Association, is receiving electricity from the distributing agency being the Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (the respondent No.2 herein), and is thereafter distributing the same to all the residents of the building.

¶32

In light of the same, the action of the Resident Welfare Association in disconnecting the electricity connection of the petitioner on account of nonpayment of charges in reference to repair and painting of Casa Greens (as mentioned in the letter dated May 22, 2025) is incorrect. The electricity charges cannot be entangled with other charges with regard to maintenance and upkeep of the building, and non-payment of the same cannot result in disconnection of electricity. The payment made by the petitioner of Rs.15,000/- should be appropriated by the respondent No.6 towards electricity charges, and the balance amount, which pertains to other

¶33

WRIC No. 3070 of 2026

¶34

4

¶35

maintenance, should be charged separately. The respondent No.6 cannot be allowed to keep a sword hanging over the head of the petitioner for disconnecting the electricity for payment of other maintenance charges, except as provided for under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 and the rules framed therein. The regulations of the Electricity Regulatory Commission are quite explicit in this regard, and the Resident Welfare Association, acting as a franchisee, cannot disconnect electricity on the basis of non-payment of other charges.

¶36

In light of the above, we direct the Resident Welfare Association to reconnect the electricity supply of the petitioner and to appropriate the entire part payment of Rs.15,000/- towards electricity charges, and to raise a separate bill for the pending maintenance charges and take appropriate action for non-payment of the same, in accordance with law.

¶37

We make it clear that, going forward, the electricity charges shall be sought for by the respondent No.6 separately, and the same shall be paid by the petitioner on a regular basis. Non-payment thereof shall give a right to the respondent No.6 to disconnect the electricity supply of the petitioner.

¶38

With the above directions/ observations, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶39

April 13, 2026 cks/-

¶40

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶41

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Hansa Yadav v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Hansa Yadav v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ayaaz Hussain vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

The Jannat X Bistro and Bar a Unit of G.D.Hospitality Thru. Owner Rakesh Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Administration and 6 Others

M/S Cloud Haven Thru. Proprietor and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Durg Admini. Lko. and 6 Others

Sabindra Risal vs Union of India,Thru. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Deptt. Revenue and 5 Others

Sajida vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Saurabh Pandey vs Union of India Ministry Finance Deptt. Financial Services New Delhi Thru. Secy. and 3 Others