ORDER

Heard Mr. D Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. U Das, the learned Addl.Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam who appears on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 7; and Mr. B Das, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3; and Mr. I. Borthakur, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of respondents Nos. 4, 5, and 6.

2. Mr. D Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of the settled principle of law that electricity is an essential service, the respondent, APDCL authorities cannot deprive the petitioner of the said essential services. In that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip (Dead) through LRS. Vs. Satish and Others, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 810,

3. Mr. B Das, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the APDCL submits that the electricity connection has not been provided, taking into account a decision taken in a meeting with the District Administration as well as the Forest Department not to grant electricity connection in respect to areas which falls under the Reserve Forest.

4. Mr. I Borthakur, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the Forest Department submits that the petitioner is in occupation of a plot of land which falls under the Hengrabari Reserve Forest area, and as such, the petitioner has no right to remain in possession. He further submitted that granting of an electricity connection to the petitioner would only be in violation to Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

5. Mr. D. Sarmah, the learned counsel countering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the APDCL as well as the Forest Department submits that all the neighbours of the petitioner have been granted their electricity connections and it is the petitioner who has been singled out by not granting the connection.

6. Taking into account the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the stand of the Forest Department be placed before this Court by way of an affidavit on the next date fixed.

7. This Court further would seek an affidavit from the respondent APDCL as to whether electricity connections in the neighboring areas of the petitioner have been granted, and if so, why the petitioner had been singled out.

8. Taking into account that electricity is an essential service and the writ petition was filed in December 2025 and there is an urgency in the matter, list this matter again on 20.05.2026.

9. The affidavit be filed by the Forest Department as well as an additional affidavit be filed by the APDCL providing the instructions as sought for hereinabove on or before 13.05.2026.