Smt. Sabahat Sultan vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited

Held

The Court held that the impugned order refusing the electricity connection was unsustainable. It found no provision that allowed the refusal of a new electricity connection to an applicant solely on the ground of their spouse's conviction for electricity theft. The Court emphasized that electricity is a basic requirement for running a business and is essential for the petitioner's livelihood, and its denial could violate her right to livelihood. The Court noted the petitioner's willingness to clear her husband's dues in installments, subject to the outcome of the pending criminal appeal, and her undertaking to pay her own consumption charges regularly. The Court reasoned that the authorities had failed to consider these aspects. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to grant a new electricity connection to the petitioner, subject to her furnishing an undertaking to clear her husband's dues within six months (contingent on the appeal's outcome) and a personal bond for clearing dues in installments, along with an undertaking to pay her own consumption charges without default. The Court explicitly stated that if the petitioner defaulted, the relief granted would cease, and the department could pursue legal recourse for recovery.

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Sabahat Sultan, applied for a new electricity connection for her furniture business, Meer Timber and Furniture. The respondent authorities rejected her application based on the conviction of her husband, Izhar Khan, under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Her husband was sentenced to two years imprisonment and fined Rs. 35,94,378/-. While his criminal appeal is pending before the High Court, his sentence was suspended, and he deposited Rs. 7,50,000/-. The petitioner argued that she is a separate business entity and electricity is essential for her livelihood. She expressed willingness to clear her husband's dues in installments and pay her own consumption charges regularly. The respondents reiterated that the connection would only be provided upon full deposit of the fine amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in refusing a new electricity connection to the petitioner solely on the ground of her husband's conviction under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and pending deposit of the entire fine amount, thereby violating Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner is a distinct legal entity carrying on her own business and should not be penalized for her husband's conviction. - Electricity is an essential service and a fundamental requirement for her sole source of livelihood, and denial thereof violates her right to livelihood. - Her husband's sentence has been suspended, and a significant portion of the fine has been deposited, with the appeal pending. - She is willing to provide an undertaking to clear her husband's dues in installments, subject to the appeal's outcome, and to pay her own consumption charges regularly. - The authorities failed to consider that she is seeking a new connection, not a restoration of her husband's connection. Respondents' Arguments: - The respondents reiterated their stance that the new electricity connection would only be provided if the entire fine amount imposed on the petitioner's husband was deposited.