for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as
"... to issue a writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 straightway
SC No.271105500" without a giving sufficient time
whatsoever to the petitioner, at the order of the 5th
respondent as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against
the principles of natural justice and to consequently direct
the Respondent No.3 to restore the service connection
for the electricity meter bearing SC No.271105500
and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case and interest of
justice."
SN,J
WP_2648_2025
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is the
absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing plot No.12
admeasuring 500 Sq. yards in Sy.No.278, bearing house No.38-
15/92/1, Vinobha Nagar, Neredmet, Malkajgiri Mandal and District,
having purchased the same through an unregistered agreement of
sale dated 28.01.1999 from one Mr. K.Laxminarayana by paying
valid sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and residing there since
2005. As per the policy formed by the State Government, the
petitioner applied for regularization of the subject property on
payment basis as per G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 30.12.2014 by paying
requisite amount, but the same is pending as on date. Recently,
the petitioner dismantled the existing house to build a new house.
While the matter stood thus, the respondent No.3 issued a notice of
disconnection of current supply vide No.ADE/OP/AS Rao
Nagar/F.No. Land Dispute D.No.44/24-25, dated 10.01.2025 to the
petitioner and disconnected the electricity supply basing on the
orders of the Respondent No. 5 due to dispute over the ownership.
The petitioner submitted representations to the Electricity
Department and the Tahsildar, but they have refused to restore the
electricity connection. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed
the present writ petition.
SN,J
WP_2648_2025
PERUSED THE RECORD
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that even as per the averments
made in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition at
paragraph No.8, the subject land is open and vacant land since the
petitioner had himself dismantled two rooms covered with ACB
sheets, hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as sought
for in the present writ petition.
5. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the impugned
notice dated 10.01.2025 may be treated as show-cause notice and
the petitioner may be directed to furnish the explanation to the said
notice and file relevant documents in support of petitioner's claim
that the petitioner is the owner of the subject land, within a
reasonable period and thereafter, the respondents would consider
the same and pass appropriate orders on the said explanation to be
furnished by the petitioner after duly examining the relevant
documents to be submitted by the petitioner along with the said
explanation.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on the
other hand, submits that based on a letter of Mandal Revenue
SN,J
WP_2648_2025
Officer, the impugned proceedings cannot be unilaterally issued to
the petitioner and the same is highly illegal and arbitrary.
7. A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings dated
10.01.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent admittedly as borne on
record, clearly indicates that on the basis of the letter of the
respondent No.5 dated 08.01.2025 which is indicated in reference
of the impugned proceedings dated 10.01.2025 of the respondent
No.3, the impugned notice dated 10.01.2025, had been issued to
the petitioner, without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue places on
record written instructions dated 04.02.2025 and contends that the
subject land is Government land and the same had been allotted to
ESI dispensary as per the orders of the District Collector.
9. This Court opines that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are bound to
follow due process of law and cannot unilaterally disconnect an
existing electricity power supply.
10. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as under:
"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
SN,J
WP_2648_2025
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: 1 Subs. by Act 26 of 2007, Sec.8 for the words
"Every distribution"
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.
1[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.]
(2) 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.
(3) 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."
SN,J
WP_2648_2025
11. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 453 in between K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State of
Electricity Board and others passed in Civil Appeal Nos.2109
and 2110 of 2004, dated 19.05.2023, observed as under:
"The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with
respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The
2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer
and premises. Under Section 43, when electricity is
supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only
with respect to those particular premises for which
electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities."
12. The Apex Court in its Judgment reported in (2011) 12
Supreme Court Cases 314 in between Chandu Khamaru Vs.
Nayan Malik and Others passed in Civil Appeal No.7572 of
2011 dated 02.09.2011 observed as under:
"Sub-section (1) of Section 42 and sub-section (1) of Section 43 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 are quoted herein below:
"42. Duties of distribution licensees and open access-(1) It shall
be the duty of a distribution licensee to develop and maintain an
efficient co-ordinated and economical distribution system in his
area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the
provisions contained in this Act."
"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."
7. It will be clear from sub-section (1) of Section 42 that every
distribution licensee has a duty to develop and maintain an efficient
co-ordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply
and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained
in this Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 43 provides that every
distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or
SN,J
WP_2648_2025
occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises,
within one month after receipt of the application requiring such
supply. These provisions in the Electricity Act, 2003 make it
amply clear that a distribution licensee has a statutory duty
to supply electricity to an owner or occupier of any premises
located in the area of supply of electricity of the distribution
licensee, if such owner or occupier of the premises applies for
it, and correspondingly every owner or occupier of any
premises has a statutory right to apply for and obtain such
electric supply from the distribution licensee.
10. ...The case of the appellant, on the other hand, is that this
passage is not a private passage of respondent Nos.1 to 3 but is a
common passage and therefore an electric line can be drawn through
this common passage. This dispute will have to be resolved in Civil
Suit No.83 of 2004 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Howrah, or in any other suit, but pending resolution
of this dispute between the parties, the appellant cannot be
denied supply of electricity to his house.
11. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge
as well as the impugned order of the Division Bench and dispose of
the Writ Petition of respondent nos.1 to 3 with the direction that the
distribution licensee will find out whether there is any other way in
which electric line can be drawn for supply of electricity to the house
of the appellant, other than the disputed passage in Dag Nos.406,
407 and 409. If there is no other way to supply electricity to the
house of the appellant, the distribution licensee will follow the
provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Electricity Act,
2003 for carrying out the work for supply of electricity to the house
of the appellant."
13. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2022
LiveLaw 570 in between Dilip (dead) through LRs Vs. Satish
and others passed in CRLA No.810 of 2022 (arising out of
Special Leave petition (CRL)No.8917 of 2019), dated
13.05.2022 observed as under:
"It is not disputed that applicant No.1 has obtained the
connection of electricity. The submissions made show that
applicant No. 1 is in possession of the shop and he is running
SN,J
WP_2648_2025
a saloon shop. It is clear that he needs electricity for doing
this business, but the first informant was not giving no
objection certificate. He took every step to see that applicant
No. 1 does not get supply of electricity for his business. It is
not the case of the Applicant No. 1 that as per the agreement
between him and landlord, the landlord is bound to supply the
electricity. Further, the Electricity Board seeks no objection of
landlord only to verify that the possession of the tenant is
authorised. There is no other purpose behind obtaining such
no objection from landlord. The landlord cannot prevent the
tenant from availing such facility at his own cost.
It is now well settled proposition of law that
electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot
be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant
on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue
no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply
authority is required to examine is whether the
applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of
the premises in question. Be that as it may, the High Court
clearly fell in error in quashing the FIR. It cannot be said that
fabrication and/or creation of records and/or forging a
signature does not constitute an offence under the Indian
Penal Code. The High Court completely overlooked the
definition of cheating in Section 415 of the IPC. It is however
made clear that electricity supply granted, shall not be
discontinued, subject to compliance by the Respondents of
the terms and conditions of supply of electricity by the
electricity department including payment of charges for the
same."
14. Taking into consideration:
a) The submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos.1 to 4 and,
SN,J
WP_2648_2025
b) The view of the Apex Court in the judgments
(referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted
below,
i) "K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State of Electricity Board
and others"
ii) "Chandu Khamaru Vs. Nayan Malik and Others"
iii) "Dilip (dead) through LRs Vs. Satish and
others"
c) The fact as borne on record that petitioner applied
for regularization of the subject property on
payment basis as per G.O.Ms.No.59 dated
30.12.2014 by paying requisite amount and the
same is pending consideration as on date by the
Government,
d) The fact that even if state is the owner, the due
procedure as per law cannot be ignored, and due
process of law needs to be necessarily followed,
The writ petition is allowed and the impugned
proceedings No.ADE/OP/AS Rao Nagar/F.No.Land Dispute
SN,J
WP_2648_2025
D.No.44/24-25 dated 10.01.2025 is set aside and the
respondents are directed to follow due process of law.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if
any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date: 05.02.2025
Note: Furnish C.C. by 07.02.2025
(B/o.) Lpd
