Gauhati High Court
Chandip Thakuria vs The State Assam And 3 Ors on 10 November, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010247642025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6357/2025
CHANDIP THAKURIA
S/O RAMA KANTA THAKURIA, RESIDENT OF 2/107G LARICA GREEN
VALLEY, DHARAPUR, AZARA, GUWAHATI, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM,
PIN-781017
VERSUS
THE STATE ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF
ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF POWER AND ENERGY, DISPUR, GUWHATI-6
2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL)
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781001
3:M/S LARICA ESTATE LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 7 RED CROSS PLACE
KOLKATA-700001 AND BRANCH OFFICE AT ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007
4:GANESH SINGH
S/O KRISHNA SINGH
R/O GURUNANAK NAGAR
CHAPAGURI ROAD
BONGAIGAON
PIN-783380
ASSA
Page No.# 2/6
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Gogoi, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate
Mr. B. Choudhury, Standing Counsel
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 10.11.2025
Issue notice making it returnable on 28.11.2025.
2. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government
Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. B.
Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel, APDCL appears on
behalf of the respondent No. 2 and accepts notice.
3. Extra copies of the writ petition be served upon them during
the course of the day.
4. As regards, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the petitioner is
directed to take steps by way of Speed Post within 3 (three)
days.
5. In addition to that, the petitioner is also directed to take
steps upon the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by way of Dasti routed
through the Registry of this Court and file an affidavit of service
on or before the next date.
6. The case of the petitioner herein is that the respondent No.
Page No.# 3/6
3 had constructed a multi-storied building in the name and style
of Larica Green Valley. One of the flats, bearing No. 2/107(G) in
Building No. 2, Floor No. 1, admeasuring 1,315 square feet with
one covered parking area was sold to the respondent No. 4 vide
a Registered Deed of Sale dated 26.03.2021. The said Deed of
Sale has been enclosed as Annexure-A to the writ petition.
7. From a perusal of the said Registered Deed of Sale, it
appears that the respondent No. 3 sold to the respondent No. 4
not only the flat in question, but also the proportionate rights in
respect to the land as well as rights over the common areas
which includes all electrical installations and wirings including the
electric meter for running of the water pump and lighting of the
common areas, pathways, stair case, etc.
8. The petitioner thereupon purchased the said flat in question
from the respondent No. 4 vide a Deed of Sale dated 14.03.2022
and it is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the rights
which flowed upon the respondent No. 4 vide the Deed of Sale
dated 26.03.2021, the same rights flowed upon the petitioner in
respect to the said flat and the common areas. It is the further
case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 has provided
only a temporary electricity connection although was required to
provide separate electrical connection. On account of certain
disputes between the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the respondent
Page No.# 4/6
No. 3 had threatened the petitioner that the electricity
connection would be disrupted and it is under such
circumstances, the petitioner had approached the APDCL
authorities for granting a separate connection. The APDCL
authorities having not considered such requests, the petitioner
herein has approached this Court by filing the present writ
petition.
9. Mr. N.J. Khataniar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submitted that electricity is an essential service
and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Dilip (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Satish & Others reported in (2022)
SCC OnLine SC 810, the respondent No. 3 cannot disconnect the
electricity supply on account of a dispute between the
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and at the same time the respondent
No. 2 who is the supplier also cannot reject or not consider a
request so made by the petitioner for a separate connection.
10. Per contra, Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel,
APDCL appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 submitted
that individual electricity connections have not been given to the
petitioner or other flat owners on account of a request made by
the respondent No. 3.
11. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on
Page No.# 5/6
behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
12. It is the prima facie opinion of this Court that electricity
being an essential service and on account of certain disputes
between the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the petitioner cannot be
deprived of the electricity which the petitioner is presently
enjoying. The question, as to whether, the APDCL authorities are
justified in not providing a separate electrical connection through
the transformer which has been installed in the multi-storied
building is a question which would be looked into at a later stage
of the instant proceedings.
13. However, taking into account that the electricity is an
essential service and there is a threat that the said electricity
would be disconnected by the respondent No. 3, it is the opinion
of this Court that the petitioner is entitled to certain interim
directions.
14. Accordingly, till the next date, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3
shall not take any steps for disconnection of the electricity
connection of the petitioner which the petitioner is presently
enjoying, subject to payment of the dues by the petitioner to the
respondent No. 2.
15. The Registry shall reflect the name of Mr. K. Gogoi, the
learned Additional Senior Government Advocate in the cause list.
Page No.# 6/6
16. List accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
