Right to Electricity is a Basic Amenity; Connection Cannot Be Denied Based on Title Disputes or Lack of NOC.

The petitioners have been in possession and occupation of Revenue Survey No. 801 in Kachchh for approximately 80 years

They held two electricity connections in the names of the first petitioner and a relative.

Due to an ongoing property dispute, the petitioners filed a civil suit (RCS No. 75 of 2025) to restrain private respondents (Nos. 1-5) from interfering with their possession

On March 25, 2026, the Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (PGVCL/Respondent No. 6), allegedly acting at the behest of the private respondents, disconnected the electricity supply without prior notice or lawful authority while the civil suit was still pending

The petitioners approached the High Court challenging this disconnection as a violation of natural justice and statutory duties.

1. Whether the action of PGVCL in disconnecting electricity without prior notice and during the pendency of a title suit is legal and valid under the Electricity Act, 2003

2. Whether a distribution licensee can deny or disconnect electricity supply based on ownership disputes when the applicant is in established occupation of the premises

Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which mandates that a distribution licensee must supply electricity to any "owner or occupier" of a premises upon application

Section 56(1) of the Act, which requires a mandatory 15-day written notice before disconnection for non-payment

Letters Patent Appeal No. 91 of 2010, establishing that electricity companies cannot adjudicate title disputes and that the right to an electrical connection is independent of ownership status

Supreme Court decision in Dilip (Dead) Through LRs vs. Satish (2022 INSC 570), which held that electricity is a basic amenity under Article 21 and cannot be declined if the applicant is in actual occupation

The Court reasoned that the petitioners sufficiently established their status as "occupiers" through revenue records and past electricity bills

It found that PGVCL’s act of disconnection was "arbitrary and unjust" because it bypassed the procedural safeguards of the Electricity Act and the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem), as no notice was served

The Court emphasized that a distribution company serves a statutory function and cannot be used as a "tool" by private parties to settle property disputes or force eviction

Since the petitioners had no outstanding dues and were in settled possession, the legal nexus required for a connection was satisfied regardless of the pending title litigation

The petition was partly allowed, and PGVCL (Respondent No. 6) was directed to reconnect the electricity supply to the petitioners' premises within eight weeks from the receipt of the order