Allahabad High Court
KM. ANUPMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it would not interfere with the family dispute and that the petitioner could not claim exclusive settled possession for the purpose of obtaining an electricity connection.
Summary
The petitioner, Anupma, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the electricity authorities to provide her a residential electricity connection. The respondents, including the state electricity board and distribution companies, indicated that the petitioner’s in-laws objected to the connection and that a technical survey could not be completed due to the dispute. The petitioner's counsel argued for her right to a connection, while the respondents submitted a letter highlighting the family objection and lack of exclusive possession. The court examined whether the petitioner could claim exclusive settled possession and whether the court could intervene in the familial dispute. Concluding that the petitioner did not have exclusive possession and that the matter involved private family issues, the court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a residential electricity connection despite objections from family members.
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the electricity authorities to provide the connection in such circumstances.
Subjects
- electricity connection
- mandamus
- writ petition
- family objection
- property possession
- public utility
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 29171 of 2026
Km. Anupma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Srivastava, Sanjay Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Baleshwar Chaturvedi, C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Petitioner seeks electricity connection. Her prayer (I) is reproduced
below.
"I- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent authorities to provide residential electricity
connection in the name of the petitioner."
Mr. Akhilesh Srivastava, learned advocate appears on her behalf. Mr.
Satyendra Yadav, learned advocate holding the brief appears for
respondent no. 2 (the distribution company).
2. We had directed notice upon respondent nos. 3 and 4 (the supply
company). Mr. Gaurav Tripathi, learned advocate appears for said
respondents and submits, parents-in-law of petitioner are objecting to
connection being given. He hands up letter dated 18th September, 2026 of
his client addressed to petitioner with copy to Mr. Akhilesh Srivastava.
Text of the letter is reproduced below.
"This is with reference to the subject; the site was visited where one
residential connection already exists with service no. 670089718. During
the site survey, severe objection was raised by family members, due to
which the technical survey and feasibility could not be checked.
Consequently, an objection letter was sent by the property owner along
with the ownership document. Our team visited the site again; however,
WRIC No. 29171 of 2026
2
the applicant was not available at the site. You are, therefore, requested
to resolve the conflict at the site to enable us to carry out the feasibility
check at said premises.
We appreciate your cooperation and understanding in this matter and
remain available for any further assistance you may require."
3. Petitioner cannot claim exclusive settled possession in her matrimonial
home, where there exists a service and the family members have objected.
Laws governing matrimonial disputes provide, inter-alia, for contingency
of spouses living separately and maintenance.
4. In the circumstances, we will not interfere. The writ petition is
dismissed.
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
September 23, 2026
Jaswant
Digitally signed by :-
JASWANT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…