Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Laljibhai Hirabhai Rabari, filed a Special Civil Application under Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, and 226 of the Constitution of India read with the Electricity Act, 2003, seeking restoration of his electricity connection which was disconnected by the respondent No. 6, Deputy Engineer of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (DGVCL). The petitioner alleged that he had paid Rs. 20,000 to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 03/04/2001 to purchase the suit property (block number 1245-3), but on 26/01/2005, the respondents refused to execute a registered sale agreement and demanded return of possession. Despite this, the petitioner remained in possession and had an electricity connection from DGVCL. The petitioner claimed that the disconnection was illegal, unconstitutional, and in contempt of orders passed by the High Court and the Supreme Court protecting his possession. The court, after hearing the parties, noted that the disconnection violated the interim orders and principles of natural justice. The court held that the right to electricity is a fundamental right under Article 21 and that the electricity company must comply with court orders. The court directed the respondent No. 6 to immediately restore the electricity connection to the petitioner's premises (Customer No. 13782/30407/1 (2), Meter No. DGST-550195). The court did not adjudicate on the title dispute but focused on the electricity connection issue. The petition was allowed with a direction for restoration of electricity supply.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Disconnection of Supply - Violation of Court Orders - The petitioner sought restoration of electricity connection disconnected by the respondent electricity company despite interim orders of the High Court and Supreme Court protecting his possession - The court held that the disconnection was illegal and directed immediate restoration of electricity supply to the petitioner's premises - Held that electricity companies must comply with court orders and cannot act arbitrarily (Paras 1-3). B) Constitutional Law - Right to Electricity - Article 21 - The court recognized that access to electricity is an essential component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The disconnection without notice or opportunity of hearing violated principles of natural justice - Held that the state and its instrumentalities must ensure continuous supply of electricity to citizens (Paras 2-3). C) Property Law - Possession and Title - Interim Protection - The petitioner claimed possession of the suit property based on a sale agreement and payment of consideration, but the respondents disputed title - The court did not adjudicate on title but focused on the electricity connection issue - Held that the electricity connection is independent of the property dispute and cannot be disconnected solely due to title dispute (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disconnection of electricity connection by the respondent electricity company was illegal and in contempt of court orders, and whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of electricity supply pending adjudication of property rights.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and directed the respondent No. 6 (Deputy Engineer, DGVCL) to immediately restore the electricity connection of the petitioner (Customer No. 13782/30407/1 (2), Meter No. DGST-550195). Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Electricity connection cannot be disconnected without following due process under Electricity Act
- 2003
- even if there is a property dispute
- interim orders of court must be complied with
- right to electricity is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
