Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is mandatory for providing electricity to owners or occupiers irrespective of landlord's arrears, recognizing access to electricity as a human right.

1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners in each of the petitions are tenants of respondent No.4 M/s. Ind Synergy Limited and are occupiers of the leased residential premises. They made an application to respondent No.2, who is a distribution licensee, for supply of electricity connection to their premises but the said supply was not made by respondent No.2 / distribution licensee leading to service of legal notice dated 29-8-2016 to respondent No.2 and in turn, respondent No.2 informed the petitioners that respondent No.4, their landlord, M/s. Ind Synergy Limited, as per their records, was having electricity arrears being the EHT consumer and therefore no connection can be provided in those premises where outstanding amount is due for payment and the matter is pending before the competent court and in these prevailing circumstances, new LT connection cannot be provided to them. Questioning legality, validity and correctness of the said order and inaction on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in non - supplying the LT electricity connection this batch of writ petitions has been preferred.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed their return stating inter alia that the Electricity Supply Code provides for requirement of new connection and respondent No.4, landlord of the petitioners, has an arrears of electricity dues on the premises for which new connection is applied for and unless the arrears are cleared, no electricity supply can be made to them. Even respondent No.4 has surrendered the HT electricity connection which was extended to it and therefore unless the dues are realised by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in full compliance of clause 4.19 of the Supply Code, issuance of new electricity connection for the same premises would not be legally permissible.

4. Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that S.43(1) of the Electricity Act , 2003 is mandatory in nature and even for non - supply of electricity connection, consequence has been provided under S.43(3) of the Electricity Act , 2003 and the distribution licensee is liable to pay penalty which may extend to Rs.1,000/- for each day of default which is also mandatory in nature. He would further submit that the dispute relating to the bill raised for arrears of electricity dues from respondent No.4 is already pending consideration before the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission and interim order has been granted in favour of respondent No.4 and as such, clause 4.19 of the Electricity Supply Code would not come in the way of the petitioners to get the service connection. Therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be directed by issuing a writ of mandamus to supply electricity connection to the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel appearing for I respondent Nos. 1 to 3, would vehemently oppose the submission and would submit that unless the entire electricity arrears are deposited by Respondent No.4 in terms of clause 4.19 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2011, the petitioners are not entided for electricity connection in their premises, as the premises are owned by respondent No.4 and the petitioners have no right to electricity. Right to electricity is not an absolute right and is covered under the statutory paradigm designed under the Electricity Act and the Supply Code, as such, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made hereinabove and a