Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chandra Prakash Jain vs Mp M K Vv Co Ltd on 11 February, 2025

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                     1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                AT G WA L I O R
                                      BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                          Writ Petition No.655 of 2025
                                 CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN
                                           Vs.

                             M.P. M.K.V.V. CO. LTD. & OTHERS

APPERANCE
       Ms. Jyoti Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
       Shri Dhruv Singhal -Advocate for respondent No.1 to 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Reserved on                           :      07/02/2025
        Delivered on                          :      11/2/2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind
Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        ORDER

The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the arbitrary action on the part of the respondents authorities in disconnecting the electricity connection of the petitioner's House No.138/03 situated at Ward No.14, Jawaharganj, Dabra on the basis of complaint of respondent No.4 by alleging that the petitioner was not the owner of the said house.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while vehemently assailing the illegal action of the respondent authorities in disconnecting the electricity connection, has submitted before this Court that the petitioner is the owner of House No.138/03 situated at Ward No.14,

Jawaharganj, Dabra and he was having connection bearing Consumer No.N2608022306 and electricity connection had been given pursuant to an application made by the petitioner and there is no outstanding against the him. Attention was invited to the provisions of Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003 which provides for duty to supply on request, to submit that the petitioner had made application as prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder pursuant to which, the respondent had given electric connection under Section 43 of the Act.

3. It was further submitted that in the facts of the present case, it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner has neglected to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than the charge for electricity due from him and there is no other provision in the Act which empowers the respondent to disconnect the electricity supply on the basis of the complaint made against him with regard to his ownership over the said house.

4. It was further submitted that earlier the respondent authorities had disconnected the electricity connection of the petitioner on frivolous ground, to which he approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum Gwalior and vide order dated 23.07.2015, the said Forum has held that the respondent authorities were not having any right to decide title of any person in respect of the property and it was directed that the regular electricity bill be provided to the petitioner.

5. It was further submitted that by virtue of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the distribution licensee is mandated to release the connection in favour of the owner or 'occupier.' The obligation on the distribution licensee is universal and subject to the petitioner willing to pay the statutory charges as contemplated under Sections 45 to 47 of the

Electricity Act, 2003 and the petitioner had always been ready and willing to comply with the said provisions but due to the reason that the officials of the respondent Electricity Department were conniving with respondent No.4, they have not released the electricity connection.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and directions be issued to the respondent/department to restore the electricity connection of the petitioner immediately.

7. Per contra, counsel for the respondent has submitted that electricity connection cannot be released to a person, who is not the owner of the premises concerned and the petitioner has not produced any document which shows that he is the owner of House No.138/03. Shri Munisubrat Nath Digambar Jain, Sanskritik Samiti, Dabra is a legal owner of the said premise and the petitioner has not provided any proof of property ownership and he had concealed the material facts from the Forum as the petitioner had filed a civil suit No.02-A/2012( RCS) before the Court below for declaration and permanent injunction on the basis of Will dated 13.01.1975, which was rejected. The rejection of the said suit when was challenged before the Appellate Court also got received the same fate vide judgment dated 02.09.2024; hence, he is not entitled for any relief as claimed for.

8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It would be necessary to refer to question and answer of issue No.1 of the Civil Suit No.02-A/2012( RCS) before the Court below:

"उभयपक्ष कके अभभवचन कके आधधार पर ननमन वधादप्रशन ककी ववरचनधा ककी गययी जजिन पर सधाकय वववकेचनधा कके उपरधानन्‍त ननषकरर्ष उनकके समक्ष अअंककन्‍त ककयके गयके हह।
          क0                        वधाद प्रशन                    ननषकरर्ष

          1                         कयधा वधादग्रसन्‍त          'सधाबबिन्‍त''
                                                   भवन
                          दधाददी कके नधानधा कधा
                          हहोकर         वधाददी        ककी
                          पपशन्‍तश्‍तैनयी समपवत्ति हश्‍तै?
वधादप्रशन कमधाअंक 1 कके सअंबिअंध मम सकधारण ननषकरर्ष:-

09. जिहधाअं न्‍तक दधावधाककन्‍त समपवत्ति वधाददी ककी पपशन्‍तश्‍तैनयी समपवत्ति हहोनके कधा प्रशन हश्‍तै, न्‍तहो इस सअंबिअंध मम यह उललकेखनयीय हश्‍तै कक वधाददी कधा कहनधा हश्‍तै कक दधावधाककन्‍त भवन उसकके नधानधा लकमयीचअंद ककी समपवत्ति थयी, और इस बिधान्‍त कहो प्रनन्‍तवधाददीगण दवधारधा भयी खजणण्डिन्‍त नहदी ककयधा गयधा हश्‍तै बिजलक सवयअं प्रनन्‍तवधाददी कमधाअंक 1 जिहो यदयवप मन्‍त क हहो चक प धा हश्‍तै और उसकके ववधधक प्रनन्‍तननधध अभभलकेख पर हश्‍तै, नके एक वसयीयन्‍त कके आधधार पर लखमयीचअंद ककी इसयी समपवत्ति मम दधावधा ककयधा हश्‍तै। वधाददी लखमयीचअंद ककी पपतयी शधाअंनन्‍तबिधाई कधा पत प हहोनके कके नधान्‍तके उसकधा नधान्‍तयी हश्‍तै , इस बिधान्‍त पर भयी कहोई प्रनन्‍तवधाद पकेश नहदीअं हश्‍तै। लखमयीचअंद ककी मतक यप हहो चक प की हश्‍तै, उनककी दहो हदी पबप तयधाअं शधाअंनन्‍तबिधाई न्‍तथधा सधाववत दकेवयी थयी इस बबिअंद प पर कहोई प्रनन्‍तवधाददी नहदीअं हश्‍तै, ऐसयी दशधा मम लखमयीचअंद ककी मतक यप कके पशचधान्‍त उसककी समपवत्ति लखमयीचअंद ककी लड़ककययों कहो और उनकके पशचधान्‍त लखमयीचअंद कके नधानन्‍तययों कहो सधाधधारण उतन्‍तरधाधधकधार मम प्रधापन्‍त हहोनके कधा अभभवचन सपषष्‍ट हहोनके सके वधादग्रसन्‍त भवन कधा वधाददी ककी पशप न्‍तश्‍तैनयी समपवत्ति हहोनधा सधाबबिन्‍त हश्‍तै अन्‍त:

वववधादयक कमधाअंक 1 कधा ननषकरर्ष ''सधाबबिन्‍त'' मम ददयधा जिधान्‍तधा हश्‍तै।"

10. From persual of the aforesaid observation with regard to issue No.1, it would be clear that the house in question is an ancestral property of the petitioner.

11. It would further be necessary to refer to the statutory provision. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads thus:-

Section 43. (Duty to supply on request): ---

(1) (Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution] licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply:

Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub- stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission:

(2) Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.

(3) Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, "application" means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances. (4) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-

section (1):

Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission.

(5) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default."

12. In order to better understand the legislative intent, it would be necessary to refer to the provision as it stood in the Electricity Act, 1910, prior to the coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003. The relevant provision contained under Section 12 (6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 is extracted as under:-

"12. Provision as to the opening and breaking up of streets, railways and tramways.

(6) In this section, "occupier" of any building or land means a person in lawful occupation of that building or land.

13. A comparative reading of both the provisions shows that there is a conscious departure by the Parliament and the word "lawful" specified in the Electricity Act, 1910, has been dropped by the Parliament in the Electricity Act of 2003. The deletion has to be viewed as a conscious act of the Parliament and not just an omission.

14. Occupier has been defined in Section 12 (6) of the Indian

Electricity Act, 1910 which reads thus:-

In this Section 'Occupier' of any building or land means a person in lawful occupation of that building of land."

15. The said issue was also addressed in the matter of Fashion Proprietor Aswani Kumar Maity vs. West Bengal Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. And Ors. reported in AIR 2009 Cal. 87. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"2. The legal question that arises is as to whether the

petitioner is entitled to supply of electricity at the premises despite the dispute and despite it being unclear as to whether the petitioner is in lawful occupation of the premises. A fair concession has, however, been made by the private respondent in suggesting that the writ petitioner is not a rank trespasser in the sense that he entered into possession with the authority of the landlord but has now overstayed the welcome and does not have any authority to remain in possession.

3. The petitioner refers to the change in the law, of the departure from the concept of "lawful occupation" in the Electricity Act of 1910 to the concept of occupier simpliciter in the Electricity Act of 2003. The petitioner suggests that the earlier judgments would have no application upon the change in law and it is a conscious decision of the legislature to drop the word "lawful" from the comparable provision.

13. Section 43 of the Act makes it incumbent on a

licensee to supply electricity to an owner or occupier of any premises. It is, probably, inappropriate to compare Section 43 of the present Act with Section 12 (6) of the previous Act. The definition of "occupier" in Section 12 (6) of the previous Act was restricted to Section 12 of the said Act.

Section 12 of the previous Act operated in a different field and is not comparable with Section 43 of the present Act.

Sub-section (6) was introduced into the 1910 Act by an amendment of 1959.

"12 (6) In this section, "occupier" of any building or land means a person in lawful occupation of that building or land."

14. If the law of the land provides that a person in possession of any premises may not be dispossessed therefrom except in accordance with law, it is implicit that the possession of the person is protected till such time that an appropriate forum holds otherwise and the person is removed from the premises under due process of law. It would then defy reason to suggest that such person can continue to be in possession but be denied an essential utility as electricity which is within the broad sweep of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

15. The writ petition succeeds. The licensee will provide a new electricity connection to the writ petitioner upon

the writ petitioner complying with all requisite formalities including paying the relevant charges. The connection will be made available within two weeks from the date of completion of all formalities by the petitioner."

16. Furthermore, the High Court of Gujarat has held in the matter of Yogesh Lakhmanbhai Chovatiya versus PGVCL Through the Deputy Engineer, passed in R/Special Civil Application No.6281 of 2021, decided on 02.08.2022 as under:-

"9. Thus, the petitioners, who are the occupiers of the land, cannot be denied the electricity connection only because dispute with regard to decision of the land in question is pending. The Division Bench has observed that the company cannot decide the disputed question of right and title and the ownership or right of occupancy has no nexus with grant of electrical connection to a consumer.

10. Under the circumstances, the respondent Company is directed to supply electricity connection to the petitioners in the premises or in the property, where they are presently staying and occupying the same."

17. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the record made available on file as well as following the judgments cited above, this Court finds that the petitioner has the right to claim electricity connection as an 'Occupier' under Section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003, however makes it very clear that whatever observations have been made in this order are only to be construed and interpreted in the

context of the petitioner's right to have electricity so long as he remains in possession of the property in question because no-one, in the modern days can survive without electricity, and therefore, the right to electricity is also a right to life and liberty in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

18. Under the circumstances, the present petition is allowed and the respondent/Company is directed to supply electricity connection to the petitioner in the premises, where he is presently staying and occupying the same. The present petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to release the electricity connection within a period of 07 days to the petitioner in the premises, where he is presently staying and occupying the same as per mandate of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 upon receipt of copy of this order subject to the petitioner complying with the other norms.

19. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the present petition is allowed and disposed of.

(Milind Ramesh Phadke)

Judge PAWAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH

pwn* COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34

KUMAR d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265f02d9d593f, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD4455E D49EA436EA65E26164BEEED89153191C56E 98CE21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.02.12 11:34:32 +05'30'