The legal point established is that proof of occupancy is required for an electricity connection, and disconnection cannot be made without following the principles of natural justice.

Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.7.2004, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Naini, Allahabad, respondent No. 3 and for a writ of mandamus commanding the authorities to restore the electricity connection in the shop of the petitioner. It transpires that the petitioner applied for an electricity connection on 27.5.2004 and after completion of the formalities and payment of necessary charges towards security money, meter charges etc. the electricity connection was sanctioned and energized on 27.6.2004. On 8.7.2004, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Naini, Allahabad, respondent No. 3, passed an order disconnecting the electricity connection on the ground that the electricity connection was obtained by concealment of material fact and that a Court case was pending in relation to an electricity dispute, which had been deliberately concealed by the petitioner. The petitioner made a complaint to the Executive Engineer, alleging that the electricity supply had been disconnected on account of the personal malice of the Sub-Divisional Officer. In spite of making this representation, no action was taken by the authorities consequently, the present writ petition was filed for the restoration of the electricity connection.

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Naini, Allahabad, respondent No. 3, has filed his own affidavit. From a perusal of said counter-affidavit, the facts which have been culled out is that the landlord applied for a permanent disconnection on 30.12.2003 and after completing the formalities, a permanent disconnection was made. Subsequently, the tenant, namely, the petitioner filed a Suit No. 2421 of 2003 in which a temporary injunction was granted to the effect that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question except in accordance with law. It further transpires that since the landlord had disconnected the electricity supply in

the shop in question, the petitioner moved an application in his own name for sanction of a new connection. This connection was sanctioned, but subsequently, disconnected by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Naini, Allahabad, on the ground that the petitioner had concealed material facts.

3. The respondents in their counter-affidavit has contended that the petitioner did apply for an electric connection which was sanctioned, but before the electricity connection could be energized, a complaint was made by the landlord in which an order was passed stating therein that no electricity connection should be given, but the petitioner in connivance with the lower officials of the department, got the connection energized. The respondents further alleged that the electricity connection was also disconnected on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit proof of ownership or of tenancy and that the indemnity was not given, as prescribed under the Rules. The petitioner also did not disclose that a dispute was pending with the landlord and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for a connection.

4. We have heard Sri S. P. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri W. H. Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the electricity connection was obtained by the petitioner by concealment of material facts and consequently, upon knowing the correct facts, the electricity connection was disconnected. The learned counsel submitted that under the Electricity Supply Code, one of the requirements for a grant of a new connection is, that the applicant should give the proof of ownership or proof of occupancy and that he should also give an indemnity as prescribed under the rules which the petitioner did not give. The learned counsel further submitted that there was a dispute pending between the petitioner and the landlord which was not disclosed by the petitioner and therefore, in view of