Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dineshbhai Govindbhai Desai, filed a Special Civil Application under Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, and 226 of the Constitution of India read with the Electricity Act, 2003, challenging the disconnection of his electricity connection by Respondent No. 6, the Deputy Engineer of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited. The petitioner's relative had paid Rs. 20,000 to respondents 1 and 2 to purchase property bearing block number 1245-3 on 03/04/2001, but on 26/01/2005, respondents 1 and 2 refused to execute a registered agreement. The petitioner claimed possession and had obtained interim orders from the civil court protecting his possession. Despite these orders, the electricity company disconnected the supply, allegedly at the behest of respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner sought a declaration that the disconnection was illegal and unconstitutional, and prayed for immediate restoration of the connection (Customer No. 13782/30417/9 (2), Meter No. DGST-550197). The court, after hearing the parties, held that the disconnection was arbitrary and without following the procedure under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which requires notice and an opportunity of hearing. The court also noted that the electricity company's action was in contempt of the civil court's orders protecting the petitioner's possession. The court allowed the petition and directed the respondent electricity company to restore the electricity connection forthwith, subject to the petitioner paying any outstanding dues. The court emphasized that electricity is an essential amenity and its arbitrary disconnection violates the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Disconnection of Supply - Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 - The court held that the electricity company cannot disconnect supply without following the procedure under Section 56, which requires notice and opportunity of hearing, especially when there are subsisting court orders protecting the petitioner's possession. The disconnection was found to be arbitrary and illegal. (Paras 1-3) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Life - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The court recognized that electricity is an essential amenity and its arbitrary disconnection violates the right to life under Article 21. The court directed restoration of the connection to ensure the petitioner's livelihood and basic needs are not affected. (Paras 2-3) C) Property Law - Possession and Title - The court noted that the dispute over title between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 is pending before the civil court, and the electricity company cannot take sides or act on the basis of such disputes without court orders. The petitioner's possession was protected by interim orders. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disconnection of electricity supply by the respondent electricity company was illegal and in contempt of court orders, and whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of the connection pending adjudication of property rights.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and directed Respondent No. 6 to immediately restore the electricity connection of the petitioner (Customer No. 13782/30417/9 (2), Meter No. DGST-550197), subject to payment of any outstanding dues.
Law Points
- Electricity connection cannot be disconnected without following due process under Section 56 of the Electricity Act
- 2003
- even if there is a dispute over property title
- the electricity company must comply with court orders and cannot act arbitrarily.
