Calcutta HC Denies Office Tenant Separate Low-Tension Connection In High-Tension-Supplied Building, Citing Safety Risks

The petitioner occupied office space on the sixth floor of a building under a lease and had previously received electricity through the building’s existing High-Tension (HT) supply.

After that supply was disconnected, it applied to CESC Limited for a separate Low-Tension (LT) connection.

CESC refused, stating that the building was served by HT supply and that a separate LT connection would create safety hazards.

The petitioner challenged the refusal under Article 226, seeking a separate connection.

Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 imposes a duty on a distribution licensee to supply electricity on an eligible owner’s or occupier’s application, but the right is subject to the premises’ physical and technical capacity to receive a safe supply.

Under K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board (2023) 14 SCC 431, the statutory right belongs to the owner or occupier, while the reference to supply “to such premises” identifies the place of delivery; supply remains subject to applicable conditions and practical requirements.

Section 53 of the 2003 Act and the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2023 provide the safety framework for electricity supply.

The Court also applied the principle in Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, AIR 1989 SC 788, that courts should not substitute their judgment for expert assessments involving complex technical matters.

It held that proportionate recovery of actual electricity and maintenance costs through internal sub-metering, without profit-making, does not by itself amount to unauthorised distribution or trading under Section 12.

CESC’s District Engineer set out specific technical risks associated with simultaneous HT and LT supplies, including back-feed, accidental paralleling, overloading, and the inability to isolate the entire building through a single device in an emergency.

The petitioner’s affidavit-in-reply offered only general denials and no technical material to rebut those concerns; the Court therefore declined to second-guess the licensee’s expert assessment.

It found the cited authorities concerning separate connections distinguishable on their facts and noted that safety remains a condition even where a separate connection may otherwise be permissible.

The Court also rejected the Section 12 argument, distinguishing lawful internal apportionment of bulk-supply costs from profit-making or arbitrary charges, against which appropriate action by the licensee could be sought.

It declined to direct CESC to provide a separate metered LT supply and dismissed WPA 17012 of 2026 without costs.