Distribution licensees cannot insist on co-sharer consent or NOC once an applicant establishes lawful occupation of premises.

The petitioner, an owner and cultivator of agricultural lands (Revenue Survey No. 80 and others) in Village Morasa, applied for a new agricultural electricity connection and an upgrade of transformer capacity on September 22, 2021.

Although the petitioner paid the requisite estimated charges, Respondent No. 5 (the petitioner’s brother) obstructed the installation, asserting that the well on the land was jointly owned and required his consent as a co-sharer.

Based on this objection, Respondent No. 3 (PGVCL) issued a communication dated July 15, 2022, refusing to process the application unless the petitioner obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the other stakeholders.

The petitioner challenged this as an arbitrary denial of a basic amenity under Article 21 and the Electricity Act, 2003.

Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which imposes a mandatory statutory duty upon distribution licensees to supply electricity to the owner or occupier of any premises upon application.

Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2015, and the Electricity (Rights of Consumer) Rules, 2020.

Precedent set by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 91 of 2010, holding that electricity companies cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title and that occupancy has no nexus with the grant of a connection.

The Supreme Court ruling in Dilip (Dead) Through LRs v. Satish and Ors. (2022 INSC 570), which established that electricity is a basic amenity that cannot be declined due to a lack of an NOC.

The court found that the petitioner had established ownership and peaceful possession through revenue records, prior electricity bills, and the respondent's own pre-audit report.

It reasoned that under Section 43, once occupancy is proved, the licensee is duty-bound to provide the connection.

The court observed that distribution companies are not judicial bodies and cannot venture into deciding rights and titles among co-owners.

It held that the respondent’s insistence on an NOC from Respondent No. 5 was unjustified, especially since the petitioner had already fulfilled the financial requirements by paying the estimated charges.

The court emphasized that denying electricity—a basic necessity—over a private civil dispute violates the petitioner's fundamental right to life under Article 21.

It held that a distribution licensee cannot deny an electricity connection to an occupier on the grounds of a pending dispute with co-sharers or the absence of their consent.

The Court directed Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to provide the new electricity connection to the petitioner as prayed for within a period of eight weeks.

Rule was made absolute.