Electricity is a basic amenity and an essential component of the right to life; therefore, an occupant in possession of premises cannot be deprived of power supply by a service provider solely at the instance of a landlord during pending civil litigation.

The Court made the following order:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.K.Ashok, learned counsel representing the Standing Counsel for APSPDCL for respondents 1 to 5 and Mr.V.Nitish, learned counsel for the 7th respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case, for better appreciation, may be narrated hereunder:

The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0.01 ¼ cents in Survey No.418/1B pyki through a Registered Sale Deed dated 19.06.2000, constructed a building at N.G.Os colony, Nandyal Town and the Municipality allotted Door Numbers for commercial and domestic purposes respectively. The petitioner obtained two electricity connections i.e., commercial service No.8431205031562 and domestic service No.8431205038915. Taking advantage of a Mortgage Deed executed by the petitioner towards the loan for family necessities and to run the hotel, the 7th respondent played fraud and filed O.S.No.586 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal against the petitioner for the relief of delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property and for payment of alleged arrears of lease amount. The 7th respondent after obtaining an ex parte decree, filed E.P.No.1 of 2020 in the said suit for eviction of the petitioner / defendant from the petition schedule building and delivery of vacant possession. The petitioner seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, filed I.A.No.950 of 2021 under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure along with I.A.No.949 of 2021 seeking to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The same are pending and the petitioner filed a separate suit O.S.No.623 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal against the 7th respondent for declaration of title. The 7th respondent is contesting the suit by filing a written statement.

3. While that being the position, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 7th respondent approached the DISCOM authorities and at his instance, the power supply to the service connection in question was disconnected on 27.11.2025. He submits that on a representation made by the petitioner referring to the civil disputes, pending in the Civil Court against the 7th respondent, the power supply was restored on 28.11.2025 by reinstalling two smart meters which were removed. He submits that in view of the attempt made by the DISCOM authorities to disconnect the service connections to the petitioner’s house and hotel on 29.12.2025, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 29.12.2025 and without responding to the same, the 1st respondent issued a Notice dated 30.12.2025 stating that the 7th respondent made an application for disconnection of the above said connections and called upon the petitioner to submit legal documents or court stay order justifying why the supply should not be disconnected. He submits that thereafter the power supply was disconnected causing serious prejudice, irreparable loss and great hardship to the petitioner. He submits that the action of the respondent-authorities in disconnecting the power supply and removing the two smart meters when the petitioner is in possession of the subject matter premises, which is being used for domestic and commercial purposes, is unjust, arbitrary and violative of rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned counsel further submits that it is not the case of