Jayant Kumar vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The matter is listed in the orders category on the application for vacation of interim order passed by this Court. However, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal itself has been taken up for hearing.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 05.05.2026 whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.4 has been allowed and respondent No.2 - Assistant Engineer (O & M), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. has been directed to consider the application filed by respondent No.4 for the electricity connection within a period of one month. Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that there is an ongoing civil dispute between the parties for which the private respondent has filed a suit and the same is pending consideration before the learned Trial Court at Jaisalmer and in that suit, an order for status quo has been passed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the interim order passed by the learned Trial Court, respondent No.2 could not have granted the electricity connection to the private respondent and therefore, the present appellant has rightly approach respondent No.2 for disconnection and respondent No.2 has rightly disconnected the electricity connection granted in favour of the private respondent. He therefore, prays that the order dated 05.05.2026 allowing the writ petition of the private respondent was not just proper and correct and therefore, it is prayed that the writ petition filed by the respondent may be dismissed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 is in the possession of the dwelling house and while staying/living in that house, he has applied for the electricity connection and the same was granted by respondent No.2. She farily submits that there is an ongoing civil dispute between the parties wherein the private respondent has challenged the sale-deed and in that matter, learned Trial Court has passed an order of status quo. She however submits that the status quo order is qua the sell agreement between the parties and it has nothing to do with grant or refusal of electricity connection in the present case. She submits that both the issues are not connected with each other and she submits that the learned Single Bench has rightly allowed the writ petition vide order dated 05.05.2026.

We have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.

The undisputed facts in the matter show that the private respondent is living in a dwelling house which has been sold to the appellant however, on a dispute being arisen between the parties, the private respondent has filed a civil suit and in that civil suit, an interim order of “status quo” has been passed by the learned Trial Court. During the pendency of the civil suit, respondent No.4 applied for electricity connection before respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 has granted the electricity connection. However, on the application filed by the appellant, the electricity connection granted in favour of the private respondent has been disconnected. The disconnection was challenged before this Court by way of filing a writ petition and the same was allowed by the learned Single Bench vide order dated 05.05.2026.

We find no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that since the interim order has been granted by the learned Trial Court therefore, respondent No.2 could not have granted the electricity connection to the private respondent. It is noted that both the disputes; one relating to the sale in question and, the another relating to grant of the electricity connection are not connected to each other, and therefore, respondent No.2 could not have disconnected the electricity connection of respondent No.4 on the pretext that an interim order of status quo has been passed by the learned Trial Court.

Learned counsel for respondent No.4, at this juncture, submits that during pendency of the suit, respondent No.4 has deposited the entire outstanding amount towards the monthly bill and after the order having been passed by learned Single Bench on 05.05.2026, the electricity connection was restored by respondent No.2. However, after passing of interim order by the Division Bench on 16.07.2026, again the electricity connection was disconnected.

In this view of the matter, the appeal preferred by the appellant is having no merit and the same is dismissed. The respondent No.2 is directed to restore the electricity connection of respondent No.4 immediately.

All applications stand disposed of.