Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Restraining Electricity Connections is Dehors Section 43 of the Act": Rajasthan High Court

09 November 2024 2:18 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Subheadline: The Rajasthan High Court allows appeals against the rejection of electricity connections in Jaipur's Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme, emphasizing the mandatory duty under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed orders preventing the issuance of electricity connections to residences in the Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme, Jaipur. The bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Shubha Mehta, underscored the mandatory duty of distribution licensees under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to provide electricity upon request from occupants of any premises. The appeals were filed following a single judge's dismissal of the petitions seeking electricity connections.
The Court emphasized the statutory obligation of the Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (JVVNL) under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. According to the Act, a distribution licensee must supply electricity to any applicant within one month of receiving a complete application. The bench noted that the learned Single Judge's order restricting JVVNL from issuing electricity connections was in direct conflict with this statutory mandate.
"Restraining JVVNL from issuance of connection would be against the statutory provisions contained in Section 43 of the Act," the Court observed.
The appellants argued that the restriction on issuing electricity connections was imposed to prevent unplanned construction. However, the Court highlighted that such restrictions led to unauthorized electricity use and significant losses for JVVNL. The Court also questioned why the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) could not prevent illegal constructions through other means rather than withholding essential services like electricity.
The High Court found that the appellants, who had occupied their premises and applied for electricity connections, were unjustly denied this essential service. The decision from the Single Judge was deemed erroneous for not considering the implications of Section 43 and the mandatory duty it imposes on the distribution licensees.
The Court's judgment was rooted in the clear language of Section 43, which outlines the duty of electricity boards to provide connections to applicants within a specified timeframe. The Court referenced several precedents, including Chandu Khamaru Vs. Smt. Nayan Malik & Ors. and Dilip (Dead) through L.Rs. vs. Satish and Ors., which support the appellants' stance that withholding electricity connections was unlawful.
Justice Pankaj Bhandari remarked, "The restriction imposed by the Court with regard to grant of electricity connection is dehors Section 43 of the Act, hence quashed. JVVNL is free to issue electric connection in accordance with law."
The Rajasthan High Court's ruling reinstates the fundamental right to electricity as enshrined in the Electricity Act, 2003, affirming that distribution licensees must comply with their statutory obligations. This judgment not only rectifies the immediate grievances of the appellants but also sets a precedent ensuring that essential services like electricity cannot be withheld arbitrarily, thus supporting lawful urban development.

 

Date of Decision: May 7, 2024
 

Latest Legal News