Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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