Beni Madhab Ghosh @ Beni Madhob Ghosh vs Assam Power Distribution Company Limited And 3 Ors.

Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010195592025

2026:GAU-AS:5510

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5134/2025
BENI MADHAB GHOSH @ BENI MADHOB GHOSH
S/O LATE BIJOY GHOSH, R/O DHEKIAJULI TOWN, WARD NO. 8, MOUZA-
BORSOLA, P.S.- DHEKIAJULI, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM
VERSUS
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 3 ORS.
A GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING DULY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULEE
BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-
781001
2:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TEZPUR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE
APDCL
CAR
TEZPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784001
3:SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
DHEKIAJULI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION
APDCL
CAR
DHEKIAJULI
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784110
4:SMTI MALABIKA NATH ROY @ MALABIKA NATH
W/O LATE SURAJIT RAY

Page No.# 2/6
R/O WARD NO. 4
L.B. ROAD
MOINAJULI
P.O. AND P.S.- DHEKIAJULI
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN-78411
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. P. Pathak, Standing Counsel
: Mr. G. Chamuah, Advocate


· Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A
· Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 22.04.2026
· Whether the pronouncement is of
the Operative Part of the Judgment : No

· Whether the full Judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K. P. Pathak, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I have
also heard Mr. G. Chamuah, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent No.4.
2. The Petitioner herein who admittedly is in possession of a RCC
building pursuant to an Agreement dated 09.12.2014 is aggrieved

Page No.# 3/6
by the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities in
disconnecting the electricity power supply and as such, has
approached this Court.
3. The APDCL Authorities have filed an affidavit-in-opposition
stating inter alia that the electricity connection stands in the name
of Shri Surajit Roy bearing Consumer No.100000003865 which was
disconnected on 14.11.2023 due to non-payment of the
outstanding dues of an amount of Rs.8,277/-.
4. It is also seen that in the meantime, certain disputes have
arisen between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.4 whereby
the Petitioner has sought for specific performance of the
Agreement dated 09.12.2014 by filing a suit being Title Suit
No.83/2025 which is presently pending before the Court of the
learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Sonitpur at Tezpur. It is also
seen that the Respondent No.4 along with her daughter who is a
minor has joined together to file counter-claim in the said suit
seeking termination of the agreement for sale dated 09.12.2014
and for recovery of possession.
5. From the disputes between the Petitioner as well as the
Respondent No.4, it is apparently clear that the Petitioner is in

Page No.# 4/6
possession of the building in question which is the subject matter
of the agreement dated 09.12.2014. It is a well settled principle of
law that supply of electricity is an essential service as has been
held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip (Dead) Through Lrs.
Vs. Satish and Others reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 810 and as
such, if the Petitioner is in possession of the said building, the
Respondent Authorities cannot deny the essential service subject
to satisfaction of the terms and conditions of the Assam Electricity
Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations,
2017.
6. This Court also cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the
electricity connection earlier was in the name of Surajit Roy (since
deceased) who is the husband of the Respondent No.4. There
cannot be a continuation of an electricity connection in the name
of a deceased person and the Petitioner also would not be entitled
to have a permanent connection sans a title over the said land and
building which is the subject matter of the Agreement for Sale
dated 09.12.2014.
7. Considering the above, this Court therefore disposes of the
instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:

Page No.# 5/6
(i) The Petitioner would be at liberty to apply for a temporary
connection in respect to the building in his possession in
terms with Clause 4.5.2 of the Assam Electricity Regulatory
Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2017 and
upon filing of such application, the APDCL Authorities shall
consider the same and provide the electricity connection
subject to satisfaction of the terms and conditions of the said
Regulations.
(ii) This Court further takes note of that as the Petitioner claims
that he was in possession of the building at the time when the
electricity connection was there, therefore the Petitioner is
directed to deposit the amount of Rs.8,277/- at the time of
submitting the application as mentioned in Clause (i)
hereinabove. It is observed that deposit of the said amount
shall not affect the inter-se rights of both the Petitioner as
well as the Respondent No.4 in Title Suit No.83/2025.
(iii) The APDCL Authorities on receipt of the said amount of
Rs.8,277/- shall close the permanent connection in the name
of Surajit Roy (since deceased).
(iv) This Court further observes that the directions made in Clause

Page No.# 6/6
(i) hereinabove thereby permitting the Petitioner to apply for
a temporary connection in terms with Clause 4.5.2 of the
Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply
Code) Regulations, 2017 shall not create any equity in favour
of the Petitioner in Title Suit No.83/2025.
Digitally signed by
Bijoy Saha
Date: 2026.04.28
13:43:56 +05'30'
JUDGE
Bijoy Saha
Comparing Assistant