VANDANA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 13816 of 2017 praying for the quashing of the order of the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum dated 9.12.2016 and for a writ of mandamus commanding the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and its Executive Engineer to provide electricity connection with a load of 6 KW under the rate schedule LMV-6 for running a footwear shop in the premises in question. In that writ petition the petitioner claimed himself to be a tenant of the shop. It was urged, in that writ petition, that the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum held that electricity energy could not be given to the petitioner as there was a dispute between the petitioner and the landlord.

(2.) It transpires that the petitioner had also filed a Civil Suit No. 1454 of 2015, in which a Miscellaneous Injunction Application was filed for a direction to the licensing authority to provide electrical energy in the shop in question. This temporary injunction application was rejected by the trial court by an order dated 6.3.2017 after recording a categorical finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish, prima facie, that he was a tenant in the premises in question.

(3.) The factum of filing the injunction application and the order holding that the petitioner had failed to prove that he was a tenant was concealed in the writ petition. The Court considering the aforesaid concealment found that these were material facts, which should have been disclosed in the writ petition. The Court by an order dated 9.5.2017 dismissed the writ petition on the ground of concealment of material facts.