Court Affirms Electricity as Essential Commodity While Maintaining that Supply Restoration Does Not Grant Occupants Any Equity or Right to Remain in Premises
The Calcutta High Court (Division Bench) has delivered a significant judgment in the matter of Sri Avijit Singha Roy & Another versus M/s. GTS Constructions & Others, upholding the restoration of electricity supply to occupants of a premises while simultaneously clarifying that such restoration does not confer any legal rights or create equity in favor of the occupants.
Background of the Case:
The case originated when the CESC (Calcutta Electric Supply Company) disconnected the electricity supply to a premises due to water percolation into the meter board position, which posed a serious safety hazard and fire risk. The writ petitioners challenged this disconnection before the High Court, seeking restoration of their electrical supply.
Single Judge's Order:
The Single Judge, in an order dated August 6, 2026, directed CESC to restore the electricity connection subject to certain conditions. The directions included: (1) acceptance of the writ petitioners' application for reconnection in the prescribed form, (2) providing quotations for costs and charges within two working days, (3) removal of the existing service cable and associated installations within three days of cost deposit by the petitioners, (4) repair of the dilapidated meter board/wall by the occupants, (5) setting up of a separate meter board on the outer wall in consultation with CESC, and (6) restoration of supply only after CESC's approval of the repair work and new meter board installation.
Challenge Before the Division Bench:
The landlords appealed against this order, arguing that the restoration of electricity supply would create unlawful equity in favor of the occupants, who allegedly had no right to remain in the dilapidated premises. The appellants contended that the order was contrary to proceedings initiated by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) under Section 412A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which were pending in separate writ petitions.
Critical Arguments Presented:
The appellants' senior advocate, Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, submitted that the writ petitioners and occupants had no right to remain in the premises and enjoy electricity. He argued that restoration of supply would be an implicit acknowledgment by the High Court of their right to occupy the premises, thereby creating additional rights and equity for the occupants.
The respondents' counsel countered that the electricity restoration matter was independent and distinct from the KMC proceedings challenging the building's status. They emphasized that electricity is a basic necessity for dignified living.
Court's Reasoning and Holding:
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Shampa Sarkar and Arjun Ray Mukherjee, provided crucial clarifications on the nature of electricity supply as an essential commodity:
1. Electricity as Fundamental Right: The Court recognized that electricity is an essential commodity and that deprivation of electricity amounts to deprivation of a meaningful, civilized living. The judgment explicitly noted that in modern times, living without electricity violates the constitutional right to live in a healthy and dignified manner.
2. Limited Scope of Relief: The Court restricted the appeal's scope to the issue of restoration of electrical supply to persons originally enjoying the supply or who had come into occupation of the premises. Importantly, the status of these occupants was not adjudicated in this proceeding.
3. Non-Conferment of Rights: The most significant holding was that restoration of electric supply to persons in occupation of the premises can never create any right or equity in their favor. The Court made abundantly clear that such restoration shall be subject to proceedings initiated by the KMC or pending before the civil courts.
4. Preservation of Statutory Proceedings: By this judgment, the Court ensured that granting electricity supply would not prejudice or interfere with the ongoing proceedings related to the building's status or the KMC's actions under Section 412A.
Practical Implications:
The judgment represents a balanced approach between humanitarian concerns and legal principles. It acknowledges the fundamental human need for electricity while simultaneously protecting the legal position of property owners and statutory authorities. The Court's clarification that electricity supply restoration does not confer occupancy rights prevents occupants from claiming long-term residence rights based on the continuity of electrical connection.
The judgment also ensures that CESC's decision to disconnect supply for safety reasons was not invalidated. Instead, the Court provided a structured pathway for restoration through proper repair and installation procedures, maintaining safety standards.
Conclusion:
This landmark judgment by the Calcutta High Court strikes a careful balance between recognizing electricity as essential for dignified living while maintaining the sanctity of property rights and ongoing statutory proceedings. The decision affirms that essential services must be available to occupants for basic human dignity, but such provision does not translate into legal rights or tenure protections. The restoration of supply remains conditional and subject to resolution of pending proceedings before the KMC and civil courts.
The order has been disposed of with no orders regarding costs.
Bottom Line:
Restoration of electricity supply does not confer any rights or equity in favor of occupants; electricity is essential for a dignified and meaningful life.
Statutory Provision(s):
Section 412A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980
Sri Avijit Singha Roy v. M/s. GTS Constructions, (Calcutta)(DB)...: Law Finder Doc id # 2970336
