JUDGMENT
Sushil Harkauli and Ajai Kumar Singh, JJ.
1. The petitioner claims to be an advocate. He filed a Writ Petition No. 45429 of 2005, in which it was held that the petitioner is not the owner of the premises and the relief of directing U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Allahabad, to give temporary electricity connection to the petitioner in an accommodation of which he was not the owner, was denied. Special appeal against that order of the learned single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 45429 of 2005 was dismissed on 16.8.2005 being Special Appeal No. 497 of 2005. The petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 64347 of 2005, again seeking the grant of power connection. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 4.10.2005, directed the Power Corporation to consider the petitioner’s request for sanction of a domestic power connection.
2. By the impugned order dated 17.11.2005, the Power Corporation has rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground (i) that the premises in which power connection has been sought by the petitioner is owned by the petitioner’s mother, (ii) that there are several litigations between the petitioner and his mother, (iii) that the mother of the petitioner has raised serious objection to the grant of power connection to the petitioner in that premises and, (iv) she has refused to issue no objection certificate’ for such connection.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an “occupant” and, therefore, the Power Corporation should be directed by a mandamus to install the power connection in the premises, which is being occupied by the petitioner.
4. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, while being over conscious about the imagined rights of the petitioner, is totally oblivious to the fact that the owner of a building also has some rights. The owner is perfectly within the ownership rights to say that he or she does not want the premises owned by him or her to be damaged by installation of a power connection. In fact, the Power Corporation cannot encroach upon any of the ownership rights.
5. In the circumstances, the petitioner’s prayer is totally misconceived. His unauthorised occupation, or for that matter even if the occupation had not been totally unauthorised, would not entitle the petitioner to override the owner’s rights.
6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.