Anurag Mehto vs. Madhya Pradesh Purv Kshetra Vidhyut Vitran Company LTD.

Held

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's application for electricity connection restoration solely on the ground of non-submission of ownership documents and the pendency of a civil suit was unsustainable. The Court referred to the definition of 'applicant' in Rule 2(b) of the Electricity (Right of Consumers) Rules, 2020, which includes both an 'owner' and an 'occupier', emphasizing the use of 'or'. The Court relied on several High Court judgments and a Supreme Court decision (Dilip through Lrs. vs. Satish and others) which established that electricity is a basic amenity and a person cannot be deprived of it merely on the ground of title disputes or non-issuance of NOCs by landlords. The key consideration for granting an electricity connection is the applicant's occupation of the premises. The Court found that the petitioner claimed to be the owner and, in any case, an occupier, and the authorities should have considered this. The impugned order dated 10.07.2025 was quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the authorities for reconsideration, with a clear direction not to reject the application on the sole ground of non-furnishing ownership documents. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to apply for a temporary connection, which was to be decided within seven days subject to an undertaking to clear dues.

Facts

The petitioner, Anurag Mehto, operating the Four Seasons Hotel, challenged an order dated 10.07.2025 by respondent no. 4, which rejected his application for electricity connection restoration under Rules 14 and 15 of the Electricity (Right of Consumers) Rules, 2020. The rejection was based on the petitioner's failure to provide ownership documents for the property and the pendency of a civil suit. The petitioner had obtained an electricity connection in 2016. Following a dispute regarding his house number and a previous writ petition (WP No.27017/2018) that was disposed of on 5.12.2024, the petitioner's application for restoration was made. Despite submitting documents, including a confirmation of his registered house number and a representation for correction, his electricity was disconnected on 15.02.2025. An earlier writ petition (WP No.7241/2025) led to the petitioner being relegated to file an appeal, culminating in the current application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the pendency of a civil suit concerning property title disqualifies an applicant from obtaining or restoring an electricity connection, under the Electricity (Right of Consumers) Rules, 2020? 2. Whether the rejection of an electricity connection restoration application solely on the ground of non-submission of ownership documents, when the applicant claims to be an occupier, is arbitrary and in violation of constitutional rights? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the definition of 'applicant' under Rule 2(b) of the Electricity (Right of Consumers) Rules, 2020, includes an 'occupier', and the mere pendency of a civil suit should not disqualify him. He argued that illegal disconnection of electricity violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, as electricity is a basic amenity and a right to life. He relied on judgments from the Supreme Court and various High Courts establishing electricity as a basic amenity and that possession/occupancy is sufficient for connection, irrespective of title disputes. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to submit essential ownership documents as required by the Electricity Act and State Rules, which mandate establishing ownership for electricity supply. They asserted that ample opportunity was given, but the petitioner did not comply, making the rejection lawful. They also pointed to the Grievance Redressal Mechanism available under Rule 15 and questioned the direct filing of the writ petition.