Even unlawful occupants may claim electricity, but Calcutta High Court makes supply conditional on building and fire-safety checks

The appellants occupied a rooftop portion of Hastings Chambers, a building treated as high-risk and used for commercial purposes.

They sought a new electricity connection under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The building’s other occupants opposed the request, alleging that the appellants’ construction obstructed a staircase and access to the roof, creating fire-safety risks.

Although the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) had ordered that the rooftop construction could be regularized, it made regularization conditional on specified compliance, including a structural-safety certificate; the record before the Court did not establish whether those conditions had been fulfilled.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, and the appellants appealed

1. Whether the appellants, as long-standing occupiers of the premises, were entitled to an electricity connection notwithstanding the disputed legality of the rooftop construction and the building’s fire-safety concerns

2. If a connection could be granted, whether it should be domestic or commercial, and what conditions were necessary before supply could be provided

Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 imposes a duty on a distribution licensee to supply electricity to a premises on an application by its owner or occupier, ordinarily within the prescribed period

The Court also recognized access to electricity as connected with the rights to life and shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution, and stated that even a trespasser in settled occupation may be entitled to electricity

In Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors., 2024 INSC 990, the Supreme Court stated, among other directions, that service connections should be provided to buildings only after production of a completion or occupation certificate

The KMC order permitting retention of the rooftop construction was conditional on compliance with requirements including production of a structural-safety certificate and payment of retention fees; non-compliance could lead to demolition

The appellants’ long-standing occupation was undisputed, so the Court accepted that they had a statutory entitlement to seek electricity; the disputed legality of their occupation did not, by itself, defeat that entitlement

However, the construction’s regularization remained uncertain because the KMC order imposed conditions whose fulfilment was not established, and the Fire Department had raised concerns about a blocked route to the roof and had not renewed the fire licence

Given the building’s high-risk status and commercial use, the Court found that an unconditional domestic connection would be inappropriate.

It therefore made supply subject to verification by CESC, through reports from KMC and the Fire Department, and prohibited residential use, LPG, and other equipment involving an open flame

The connection could not be used for residential purposes, and LPG or other open-flame equipment was prohibited.

The appeal and connected applications were disposed of