Possession of a premises entitles the occupant to essential electricity supply regardless of pending title disputes.

The Petitioner is in possession of an RCC building in Sonitpur, Assam, based on an Agreement for Sale dated 09.12.2014

The Respondent APDCL disconnected the electricity supply to the premises on 14.11.2023 due to outstanding dues of ₹8,277/- accrued under the name of the original consumer, Surajit Roy (deceased husband of Respondent No. 4)

Civil litigation (Title Suit No. 83/2025) is currently pending between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 regarding specific performance of the sale agreement and a counter-claim for recovery of possession

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking restoration of electricity as an essential service

1. Whether the Petitioner, being in possession of the premises despite an ongoing title dispute, is entitled to the restoration of electricity as an essential service

2. Whether an electricity connection can be maintained in the name of a deceased person and what conditions apply for a temporary connection for an occupier

The court applied the principle that the supply of electricity is an essential service, as established by the Supreme Court in Dilip (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Satish and Others (2022) SCC OnLine SC 810

Clause 4.5.2 of the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2017, which governs the provision of temporary connections and requires compliance with specific terms and conditions by the applicant

The Court reasoned that since the Petitioner’s possession of the building was admitted, the Respondent Authorities could not deny him an essential service like electricity

The Court noted that a permanent connection cannot continue in the name of a deceased person (Surajit Roy), and the Petitioner cannot claim a permanent connection without established title to the property

The Court harmonized the Petitioner's right to essential services with the APDCL's right to recover dues by directing the Petitioner to clear the arrears of the deceased consumer as a condition for applying for a temporary connection under the 2017 Regulations

The Court clarified that this temporary arrangement was purely administrative and would not influence the merits of the pending title suit

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that the Petitioner must deposit the outstanding sum of ₹8,277/- at the time of application; upon receipt of payment, APDCL shall close the permanent connection in the name of the deceased Surajit Roy and provide the new connection; and these directions shall not create any equity or rights in favor of the Petitioner in the pending civil suit