Electricity supply cannot be mandated for premises declared unsafe and liable to demolition.

The petitioners, claiming to be tenants at premises no. 121/4K, Manicktala Main Road, Kolkata, applied to CESC Limited for an electricity connection for their printing press, M/s. S.A. Printers.

CESC initially indicated that access to the premises was obstructed by a garbage dump; the petitioners relied on alleged clearance by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and a written no-objection from the police authorities.

The petitioners also relied on an injunction in a title suit restraining the private respondents from dispossessing them except through due process of law.

CESC and the private respondents opposed the relief on the ground that the premises had been ordered to be demolished because of its dangerous and dilapidated condition.

A Co-ordinate Bench had previously upheld the demolition and vacation directions concerning the same premises, finding that the structure posed an imminent threat to life and property.

Whether CESC could be directed to provide electricity to the petitioners at the subject premises on the basis of their alleged occupation, municipal clearance and police no-objection.

Whether electricity supply could be mandated where the premises had been declared dangerous, ordered to be demolished, and found by a Co-ordinate Bench to pose a serious safety risk.

The Court applied Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which generally requires a distribution licensee to supply electricity upon an application by an owner or occupier of premises, subject to the other provisions of the Act, including considerations of safety and security of persons and property.

It also relied on the demolition and vacation action taken under Section 412(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, which had been upheld by a Co-ordinate Bench where the structure was found to be dilapidated and imminently dangerous.

The governing principle was that tenancy or occupation rights cannot justify permitting an unsafe structure to remain standing, nor can a court compel electricity supply to premises liable to demolition on safety grounds.

The Court held that the alleged municipal clearance of the garbage dump and police no-objection did not overcome the fundamental issue of the structural danger posed by the premises.

Although the Court expressed reservations about the handwritten notes relied upon by the petitioners, it assumed their authenticity for purposes of decision-making.

The earlier decision concerning the same premises conclusively demonstrated that part of the building had collapsed, the remaining structure was in imminent danger of falling, and demolition was necessary to safeguard human life.

Accordingly, the general entitlement to electricity under Section 43 could not be applied independently of safety considerations.

In those circumstances, directing CESC to energise the dangerous premises would be inconsistent with the statutory framework and public-safety obligations.

The writ petition, WPA 21296 of 2026, was dismissed without costs.