MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |    

Occupier's Right to Electricity Connection Subject to Authorized Occupancy: Allahabad High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant decision on the entitlement of tenants to electricity connections, the Allahabad High Court has elucidated the scope and limitations of such rights in the context of disputed occupancy. The bench, comprising Justices Manjive Shukla and S.D. Singh, delivered the judgment on 23 February 2024 in the case of Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma And Another vs. State Of UP And 4 Others (Writ - C No. - 5548 of 2024).

The crux of the judgement revolves around the rights of tenants, as 'occupiers', to seek an electricity connection independently of the landlord’s consent, as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the U.P. Electricity Code, 2005. The Court focused on the distinction between authorized and unauthorized occupancy in this context.

The petitioners, inducted as tenants in the premises at Varanasi, faced eviction proceedings and sought an independent electricity connection after the original connection was disconnected at the behest of the landlord. The issue before the court was whether the petitioners, facing an eviction decree and considered unauthorized occupants, were eligible to receive an electricity connection.

The Court acknowledged the tenant’s right to basic amenities, including electricity, but emphasized the condition of authorized occupancy for such entitlement. Citing precedents and statutory provisions, the bench clarified, “A tenant would be an authorized person in occupation of a premises. However, in the presence of an unchallenged eviction decree, the petitioners cannot be deemed authorized occupants.”

Justice Shukla noted, “The eviction decree against the petitioners impacts their status as 'authorized occupiers', thus affecting their eligibility for an electricity connection.” The Court refused to exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution in favor of the petitioners, given their current legal standing.

The writ petition was disposed of, with the observation that the petitioner's entitlement to an electricity connection is contingent upon a change in their legal status regarding the premises. The court held, “If the eviction decree is set aside, recalled, or stayed, the petitioners may apply afresh for the connection in accordance with the law.”

Date of Decision: 23 February 2024

Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma And Another vs. State Of UP And 4 Others

Similar News