The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in a significant ruling, has held that there is no statutory duty or existing policy compelling the State Government to pay the electricity dues incurred by Bar Associations operating within court premises.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla dismissed a writ petition filed by the Civil Bar Association, Basti, which sought a writ of mandamus to direct the State of U.P. to pay its outstanding and regular electricity bills. The Court concluded that lawyers are largely a body of private practitioners who must share the responsibility of paying for the facilities they use.
The judgment was delivered on October 30, 2025, in the case of Civil Bar Association District Basti And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others (WRIT-C No. 30861 of 2025).
Background of the Case
The Civil Bar Association, Basti, filed the petition seeking two specific reliefs:
- A direction to the State of U.P. (Respondent No. 1) to deposit the “due electricity bill” of the Association.
- A direction to the State of U.P. to deposit the “regular electricity bill” incurred by the Association.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Appearing for the petitioner, learned Senior Advocate Sri Arun Kumar Gupta argued that the judiciary cannot function effectively without the “wholesome participation by the members of the Bar.”
The petitioner contended that the State remains “duty bound to bear the minimum expenses” for Bar Associations, including buildings, electricity, water supply, and washrooms.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Supreme Court Bar Association and Others Vs. B.D. Kaushik (2011) 13 SCC 774. The petitioner also cited two High Court judgments that had applied this principle:
- Vinod Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. State of M.P. and Others, AIR 2013 (MP) 145, where the Madhya Pradesh High Court held it “obligatory on the part of the Government to provide free electricity to the Bar Association.”
- Bar Association, Zira Vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2017 (3) PLR 785, where the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the “bar room, bar library, office of the Bar Association and Bar Lounge are the integral part of the Court” and their electricity expenses should be “borne by the Court itself.”
The petitioner submitted that the Association lacked the means to pay the dues and that members had only contributed Rs. 1,27,000/- to avoid immediate disconnection.
Respondents’ Submissions
Learned Standing Counsel Sri Mukul Tripathi, representing the State, opposed the petition. He argued that the ratio in B.D. Kaushik (supra) was not regarding the State’s liability for electricity charges, but about principles like ‘one person one vote’ in Bar Associations.
The State submitted that bar rooms are “infrastructure provided for facilitation” and not part of the “Court room structure.” Crucially, it was argued that there is “no policy of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to provide for such payments” and the M.P. and P&H High Court decisions do not lay down binding law.
Sri Ashish Mishra, counsel for the High Court, added that the policy in Uttar Pradesh is, in fact, “otherwise.” He stated that while the State constructs basic infrastructure (rooms, halls, toilets), the “liability to pay for electricity and other dues remains on the tenants to whom individual rooms are let out,” and “Not one exception may have been made to that policy.”
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Allahabad High Court, after hearing all parties, proceeded to analyze the legal basis for the mandamus sought.
The Bench first established the test for a writ of mandamus, stating it “may lie to enforce performance of a duty… where (i) such duty pre-exists and (ii) there is a denial, refusal or neglect to perform that duty.”
Applying this test, the Court found:
- “No statutory duty exists on the State to either pay for arrears or the future dues of the electricity…”
- “No policy decision has been made by the State Government as may commend any examination by this Court…”
Addressing the precedent cited by the petitioner, the Court observed that the Supreme Court in B.D. Kaushik (supra), while recognizing lawyers as “officers of the Court,” made “no extension or application of that principle… as may be read to create a duty on the State Government to pay for the electricity dues of the petitioner.”
The Bench acknowledged that the M.P. High Court decision was “on the point at hand” but distinguished it on facts. More significantly, the Allahabad High Court expressed its disagreement with the legal view taken by the M.P. and P&H High Courts.
The Court observed: “…unfortunately, that cannot become the basis to reach a conclusion that minimum facilities of electricity and other utilities and finances of the Bar may be provided at the cost of the State exchequer.”
In its key finding, the Bench held: “To the extent, lawyers largely remain body of private practitioners and they form Associations to protect their interests and further their common objectives, they would have to share responsibilities of paying for the facilities that they use.”
The Court respectfully disagreed with the extension of the Supreme Court’s principle by the other High Courts, stating it “may remain an extension of the principle (laid down by the Supreme Court) with which we may respectfully disagree.”
Concluding its analysis, the Court held: “Consequently, neither on technicalities of the law of mandamus nor on the facts, we are inclined to issue a writ of mandamus to the State or the High Court to provide for payment of electricity dues of the petitioner.”
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. The Court left it “open to the petitioner to approach the State Government as also to pay up the balance electricity dues and current dues in such manner and in such time as it may be advised.”
