Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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
 

Similar News