SONU GOYAL vs PERMANENT LOK ADALAT AND ORS — CWP/35968/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 12-Feb-2026

CNR: PHHC011925202025

e-Filing Number

26-11-2025

Filing Number

CWP/75085/2025

Filing Date

27-Nov-2025

Registration No

CWP/35968/2025

Registration Date

01-Dec-2025

Judge

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Coram

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Bench Type

Single

Category

63.51 - CASES AGNST ORD OF PLA REG ALL KIND OF ELE DIS UT ( 751 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SONU GOYAL

    Adv. UMESH KUMAR KANWAR

  2. 2.Sonu goyal

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PERMANENT LOK ADALAT AND ORS

  2. 2.Permanent Lok Adalat and ors

  3. 3.Sub Divisional Officer electricity office

  4. 4.Tarsem kumar

  5. 5.Indu goyal

  6. 6.Sanjay Goyal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF

    Case Summary: CWP-35968-2025 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of Sonu Goyal's petition challenging the Permanent Lok Adalat's dismissal of his application for a separate domestic electricity connection. Although a family dispute existed regarding the No Objection Certificate, the court found that the petitioner had not directly approached Chandigarh Power Distribution Limited. The court permitted the petitioner to approach the electricity supplier directly, directing it to consider and resolve his request in accordance with law within 8 weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/35968/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP-35968-2025 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of Sonu Goyal's petition challenging the Permanent Lok Adalat's dismissal of his application for a separate domestic electricity connection. Although a family dispute existed regarding the No Objection Certificate, the court found that the petitioner had not directly approached Chandigarh Power Distribution Limited. The court permitted the petitioner to approach the electricity supplier directly, directing it to consider and resolve his request in accordance with law within 8 weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case