RAJESH KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri N.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri M.P. Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, Shri Shiv Ram Dubey, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) By means of this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.5.2014 passed by respondent No. 3, Executive Engineer (City), Electricity Distribution Division Ist, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, by which he has directed to disconnect the electricity connection of the petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Shukla house No. 388 with immediate effect. The aforesaid order appears to have been passed taking note of the order of this Court dated 08.2013 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54464 of 2013.

(3.) The facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner and respondent No. 6 are real brothers and respondent No. 5 is their mother. With respect to the electricity connection in house No. 388, a dispute arose in between the parties after the death of the father in the year 1998. It is the case of the petitioner that he is living along with his family on the ground floor of house No. 388 and his elder brother Kamlesh along with mother is living in two storied building bearing house No. 381. After some family arrangement, on the application of the petitioner, temporary electricity connection was provided to him in house No. 388, but that was disconnected after sometime, after the complaint of the mother and brother of the petitioner. After disconnection of the electricity connection, the petitioner approached this Court through Writ petition No. 69951 of 2009 and this Court vide order dated 22.12.2009 disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the Executive Engineer (City) Electricity Distribution Division, who in turn was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner's connection was restored, but again on the complaint of the mother and brother of the petitioner, the connection was withdrawn in June, 2011. The petitioner again filed Writ Petition No. 75989 of 2011 on the grounds that order impugned in the writ petition was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as notices were not served upon him except the notice dated 24.2011.