By the Court.—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 8.2.2013 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 alongwith his family on the ground floor of house No. 388 and his elder brother Kamlesh alongwith 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connection was restored, but again on the complaint of the mother and brother of the petitioner, the connection was withdrawn in June, 2011.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 23.4.2011.

4. The stand taken by the respondents is that the connection was obtained on the basis of the false affidavit. Taking note of this, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file objections pursuant to the notices issued to him within four weeks from the date of the order and the Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur was directed to take appropriate decision on the same. Subject to above, the order dated 2.6.2011 was set aside and respondents were directed to give provisional electricity connection to the petitioner, which was to be subject to the final decision in the case. It is thereafter, the respondents have passed the order dated 27.9.2012 for disconnection of petitioner’s electricity connection No. 3624/109799. This order was again made subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 54464 of 2012. That writ petition was disposed of with the directions to the Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur to reconsider the representation in view of the observations made in the order with liberty to the respondents to provide personal hearing to parties, in case, it is required. Direction was also given for providing the provisional electricity connection to the petitioner in House No. 388. After the aforesaid order, the impugned order has been passed.

5. The order has been challenged on number of grounds. This Court while entertaining the writ petition, had granted three weeks’ time to all the respondents to file counter-affidavit. While passing the order, the Court also directed the p