Writ petition becomes infructuous once the disputed temporary electricity connection is disconnected.

The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited and its Junior Engineer to disconnect and remove the temporary electricity connection granted to Respondent No. 4, Smt. Subhashini Sahu @ Subhash Tandon, allegedly occupying encroached premises situated over Khasra Nos. 577/2 and 469/1.

The petitioner contended that a civil court had directed the parties to maintain status quo over the disputed property by order dated 15 October 2025 in MCA No. 44/2024, and that continuation of the electricity connection would effectively legitimise the alleged encroachment.

Respondents No. 2 and 3 informed the Court that the temporary electricity connection had already been disconnected by the competent authority.

Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents No. 2 and 3 to disconnect and remove the temporary electricity connection provided to Respondent No. 4.

Whether any further direction was required to enforce the status quo order dated 15 October 2025 in relation to the disputed property.

Whether the writ petition remained maintainable for adjudication after the electricity connection had already been disconnected.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, including the power to issue a writ of mandamus where a subsisting public or statutory duty requires enforcement.

However, where the relief sought has already been granted or the underlying grievance has ceased to exist, the petition may be dismissed as infructuous.

The Court also applied the principle that, while disposing of a matter on the ground of supervening circumstances, it should not adjudicate upon or express an opinion on the merits of the parties’ underlying property dispute.

The principal relief sought was the disconnection of the temporary electricity connection. Since Respondents No. 2 and 3 established that the connection had already been disconnected, the factual basis for issuing a mandamus no longer survived.

Consequently, there was no effective relief left for the Court to grant, and no further adjudication was necessary in the writ proceedings.

The Court accordingly refrained from examining the petitioner’s allegations of encroachment, the effect of the status quo order, or the parties’ competing rights in the disputed property.

The writ petition was therefore dismissed as having become infructuous.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the property dispute or on the rights and contentions of the parties.