Ashwani Kumar vs. J And K Power Developmemnt Corporation LTD. Th. Managing Director, Jammu And Others

Held

The Court held that the respondents have a statutory duty under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to provide electricity connections to occupiers of premises. The Court found that the petitioner, as a lawful occupier who had taken the premises on lease and obtained GST registration, was entitled to an electricity connection. The refusal to accept the application, allegedly influenced by the landlord, was deemed arbitrary and in contravention of the statutory mandate. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution would be severely impacted without electricity. The ratio decidendi is that electricity authorities cannot deny a connection to a bonafide occupier based on disputes between the occupier and the landlord, especially when the occupier fulfills all necessary formalities. The Court directed the respondents to immediately consider granting a new three-phase electricity connection to the petitioner within two weeks, explicitly stating that they are at liberty to insist on all required formalities except for a "No Objection" from the landlord. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashwani Kumar, operating M/s Ashwani Trading Company, sought an electricity connection for his leased premises at Plot No. 112, Yard No. 6, Transport Nagar, Jammu. He had leased the premises on April 1, 2022, and incurred significant expenses to set up his business. The landlord allegedly attempted to dispossess him, leading to a civil suit and a restraint order against the landlord. Subsequently, the landlord disconnected the electricity supply. The petitioner applied for a new electricity connection, but the respondent (electricity authority) refused to accept his application, allegedly under pressure from the landlord. The petitioner had obtained GST registration and was paying rent inclusive of GST. He argued that the refusal violated Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and his right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. He had also served a legal notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities are legally obligated under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to grant an electricity connection to the petitioner as an occupier of the premises, irrespective of any dispute with the landlord. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, imposes a mandatory duty on the respondents to supply electricity within one month of receiving an application. He argued that the respondents' refusal to accept his application, allegedly due to pressure from his landlord, was arbitrary and a colorable exercise of power. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Dr. Meena Chaudhary vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors. and the Calcutta High Court judgment in Fashion Proprietor Aswani Kumar Maity vs. West Bengal Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. And Ors., asserting that an occupier has a right to an electricity connection. He also cited Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao for the principle that a legal right and corresponding legal duty can be enforced through a writ of mandamus. Furthermore, he argued that denial of electricity connection infringes his right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by the respondents.