Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Budha Ram vs Managing Director (2025:Rj-Jd:23058)
2025 Latest Caselaw 1147 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1147 Raj
Judgement Date : 13 May, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Budha Ram vs Managing Director (2025:Rj-Jd:23058) on 13 May, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:23058]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3911/2025

Budha Ram S/o Sujana Ram, Aged About 60 Years, Sarnau,
Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       Managing Director, Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur.
2.       Executive Engineer (PWS), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam
         Limited, Raniwara, District Jalore.
3.       Executive Engineer (PWS), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam
         Limited, Sanchore, District Jalore.
4.       Assistant Engineer (O & M), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam
         Limited, Raniwara, District Jalore.
5.       Assistant Engineer (O & M), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam
         Limited, Sankad, District Jalore.
6.       Raghunath Ram (Ledger Keeper), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran
         Nigam Limited, Sankad, District Jalore.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Hapu Ram
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. D.S. Sodha



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

13/05/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the inaction

of the respondent authority which is trying to disconnect the

domestic electricity connection i.e. account No.21060240 of the

house of the petitioner on the strength of the Judgment and

Decree dated 16.01.2018.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the co-sharer has filed a

suit seeking restraint order against the petitioner from obtaining

the agricultural connection to the well which he has filed in the

[2025:RJ-JD:23058] (2 of 3) [CW-3911/2025]

year 2013. Prior to that the petitioner was holding domestic

connection and that was disconnected in the year 2012.

3. Subsequently, under the scheme, the petitioner made an

application for restoration of the domestic connection and the

restoration has been done in the year 2024. The restoration and

the change of meter was done in the month of December, 2024.

The respondent authority has issued a notice to the line-man who

has restored and replaced the meter on the ground that such

action amounting to violation of the Judgment and Decree passed

by the Competent Court dealing with the property relating to the

present survey number in which the domestic connection exists.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the petitioner was holding domestic connection and he made

an application for agricultural connection and when such an

application was made for agricultural connection, the other co-

sharer apprehends that the agricultural connection may be used

by the petitioner to get the claim over the well which is located in

particular survey number which is not partitioned by the just

actions. However, by seeing the notice issued by the respondents

to their employee, the petitioner's apprehension is that the

authorities may disconnect the domestic connection on account of

the decree passed by the Competent Court is well-founded.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that on account

of the operative portion of the decree, such an action of the

employee would be contrary to the decree, therefore, they have

issued the notice.

6. From a glance of the issue involved with the decree, prima

facie, it appears that when the petitioner made an attempt to

[2025:RJ-JD:23058] (3 of 3) [CW-3911/2025]

obtain agricultural connection of the well located in Khasra No.34,

the suit appeared to be filed and the Competent Court passed the

final judgment restraining the petitioner from obtaining any kind

of connection over the Khasra No.34.

7. The entire dispute is not dealing with the existing connection

and there is no order of mandatory injunction for removal of the

existing domestic connection though it was disconnected for non-

payment of the electrical charges.

8. This Court feels that the apprehension of the petitioner is

well-founded in the light of the notice issued by the respondent to

their employee.

9. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed and the

respondents are restrained from disconnecting the domestic

connection on the basis of the Judgment and Decree dated

16.01.2018.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 261s-PoonamS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter