IMPORTANT POINT
Access to electricity should be construed as a human right, subject to the requirements of the Electricity laws, and denial of the same would amount to a violation of human rights.

JUDGMENT ON BOARD :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking Writ Appellate jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, this Writ Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants herein calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the Order dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure A-1) by which the learned Single Judge has disposed of W.P.(C) No.3657 of 2019 (Pawan Kumar Jain (Dhopade) and Another Vs. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and Others) refusing to grant relief(s) as claimed therein.

2. The admitted position in the instant case is that the Appellant No.1 - Pawan Kumar Jain (Dhopade) was the son of Respondent No.5 – Ramchandra Dhopade and the Appellant No.2 - Smt. Neha Jain is the wife of Appellant No.1. During pendency of this Writ Appeal, the Appellant No.1 died and his two sons, Paras Jain and Prithvi Raj Jain, have been substituted as Appellants No.1(A) and 1(B) respectively as his heirs on the record.

3. That the Appellants No.1 & 2 both were residing in the subject premises situated at Jagdalla, Champa in District Janjgir-Champa. The Respondent No.5 is said to have given the premises in question to the Appellants No.1 & 2 to stay. However, on account of strained relationship, vide Annexure A-2 dated 12.4.2019, the Respondent No.5 directed the Appellants No.1 & 2 to vacate the subject premises as he was in need of the said premises. Simultaneously, vide Annexure A-4, the Respondent No.5 filed an application before the Respondent-authorities to disconnect the electricity connection of the subject premises, which was standing in the name of Respondent No.5. Acting upon the said application made by Respondent No.5, the Respondent authorities disconnected the electricity supply of the subject premises on 13.9.2019. For restoration of the electricity supply, the Appellants approached the Respondent authorities but to no avail, which led to the filing of W.P. (C) No.3657 of 2019 titled as “Pawan Kumar Jain (Dhopade) and Another Vs. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and Others” before the Writ Court. By impugned Order dated 22.10.2019, the learned Single Judge disposed of the said Writ Petition recording the undertaking given by the counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 to 4 authorities that in case the Appellants apply for a fresh electricity connection the same shall be provided to them subject to NOC (No Objection Certificate) granted by the owner of the suit premises (Respondent No.5), in terms of clause 4.18 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2011. However, the Respondent No.5/owner of the subject premises, has not granted NOC to the Appellants No.1 & 2, which resulted in filing of the present Writ Appeal by the Appellants No.1 & 2 against the impugned Order passed by learned Single Judge.

4. On notice being issued to the Respondent authorities including Respondent No.5 – Ramchandra Dhopade, the Respondent No.5 has chosen not to appear before this Court. However, he has sent his reply opposing grant of electricity connection to Appellants No.1 & 2 (Appellant No.1 has since died), which has been taken on record.

5. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, would submit that Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is mandatory in nature and even for non-supply of electricity connection, consequence of penalty has been provided under Section 43(3) of the Electricity Act that if the distribution licensee fails to supply electricity within the period specified in sub- section (1), he would be liable to pay penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default, which is also mandatory in nature. He would further submit that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 30.9.2021, the Appellants are utilizing the electricity supply in the subject premises and that the dispute in the instant case is in fact between the father and son, which could be adjudicated upon by the jurisdictional Civil Court and that th