Sulekha v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 Sulekha and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Akshay Laller, Advocate and Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Deepak Vashisth, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Ravish Kaushik, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4 *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 30.12.2025 whereby their application for new electricity connection has been rejected.

2.

On 17.02.2026, this Court passed the following order: "Counsel for the petitioners states that electricity connection at petitioner's house was in the name of respondent No.5, who got it disconnected in order to pressurize the petitioners, who have lodged an FIR for offences under POCSO Act, 2012. Counsel asserts that petitioner No.1 and her husband have a physical disability of 85% and 60%, respectively, and they are being unduly harassed as their application for release of electricity

-2connection has been rejected vide impugned order, Annexure P-4.

Advance copy of the petition has been served upon the official respondents.

Mr. Ravish Kaushik, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4. He requests for short accommodation to get instructions.

List on 05.03.2026.

In the meantime, respondents are directed to get the requisite documents from the petitioners and release the electricity connection to their premises in accordance with rules on or before the next date of hearing." 3.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that petitioners have deposited electricity dues, however, they have not furnished documents with respect to ownership or lease of the property. 4.

Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.5 is owner of the property and he is father-in-law of petitioner No.1. Aforesaid criminal case is pending against him, thus, he has got power supply disconnected. The petitioners are staying without power supply.

5.

In the present era, it is very difficult to survive without electricity. It is a basic necessity and part of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are struggling for electricity supply for the last five months. This Court finds it appropriate to direct respondent to release temporary electricity connection subject to payment of charges without insisting for proof of ownership or rent deed. The respondent shall not insist for fresh application and consider already

-3filed application seeking electricity connection. The needful shall be done within one week from today.

6.

Disposed of in above terms.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 20.04.2026 Mohit Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No