Occupant Cannot Be Denied Electricity Merely Because Decree-Holder Demands Disconnection Pending Eviction: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"If the decree holder / registered owner is armed with a decree, the same has to be executed in accordance with the Law and under guise of the same, no other actions shall be adopted to drive the occupant to vacate the premises, much less by getting the power supply disconnected." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that electricity supply to a premises cannot be disconnected at the behest of a decree-holder merely to force the eviction of an occupant while civil litigation remains pending.

A single-judge bench of Justice Ninala Jayasurya observed that electricity is a fundamental necessity and an integral part of the right to life, ruling that mere pendency of a civil litigation cannot be a ground to deny power supply to a person in physical possession of a property.

The petitioner, who claimed to have purchased the subject property in 2000, was running a hotel and residing on the premises with two authorized electricity connections. The seventh respondent, claiming to be the registered owner, obtained an ex-parte eviction decree against the petitioner and subsequently convinced the electricity distribution company (DISCOM) to disconnect the power supply. Aggrieved by the sudden disconnection while her application to set aside the ex-parte eviction decree remained pending before a civil court, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether electricity supply can be lawfully disconnected at the instance of a registered owner or decree-holder while the occupant remains in actual physical possession. The court was also called upon to determine if the availability of an alternative remedy before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum bars the maintainability of a writ petition involving the deprivation of basic amenities.

The court strongly deprecated the practice of using electricity disconnection as a coercive tactic to bypass formal eviction procedures. Justice Jayasurya emphasized that even though the petitioner had suffered an ex-parte decree, she had not yet been lawfully dispossessed from the property. The bench clarified that a decree-holder must execute their decree through proper legal channels rather than weaponizing essential services to force out an occupant.

"Till the petitioner / occupant is evicted and possession pursuant to the decree is taken over, in accordance with the Law, she is entitled for the supply of electricity."

Relying on a catena of judgments, the court reiterated that electricity is not a mere privilege but a fundamental necessity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The bench referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Dilip (Dead) through LRs. v. Satish and Others, which established that an electricity supply authority only needs to verify physical occupation, not legal title. Furthermore, referencing the apex court's ruling in Chandu Khamaru v. Nayan Malik, the court noted that pending the resolution of a civil dispute, basic human amenities cannot be arbitrarily suspended.

"It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived."

"Further, alternative remedy, in a case of this nature, cannot be treated as an efficacious remedy."

Addressing the statutory framework, the court examined Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in light of the Supreme Court's three-judge bench decision in K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board. The bench observed that the statute creates a synergy between the consumer and the premises, obligating the utility to supply power to the lawful occupier rather than strictly the titled owner. Dismissing the DISCOM's argument regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, the court held that statutory grievance forums are inadequate when fundamental constitutional rights are directly infringed.

"All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question."

While ruling in favor of the petitioner, the court acknowledged the genuine apprehension of the registered owner that unpaid electricity bills by the occupant could eventually burden the property. To strike an equitable balance, the court formulated strict conditions, allowing the petitioner to apply for reconnection without needing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the decree-holder. However, the court mandated the advance deposit of six months' average consumption charges and warned that a default in paying regular monthly bills for two continuous months would result in immediate forfeiture of the deposit and subsequent disconnection.

"A balance has to be stuck keeping in view the interest of the existing consumer of electricity / petitioner who suffered decree till the same is executed, in accordance with the law and duly evicted from the subject matter premises."

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the DISCOM to restore the electricity supply within one week of receiving the petitioner's application. The court clarified that its directions regarding electricity supply were to ensure the protection of basic amenities and would not prejudice the ongoing civil litigation or influence the civil court's final determination of property rights.

Date of Decision: 24 March 2026