Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 14065
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Devashis Baruah, J
SATYA SONOWAL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS – Respondent
WP(C)/7185/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D Sarmah
For the Respondents: I Borthakur, U Das, B Das
The court is examining the conflict between the right to electricity as an essential service and the restrictions imposed by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, specifically regarding whether such denial is discriminatory if neighboring residents have received connections.
Headnote:(A) Essential Services - Electricity - Right to Access - Petitioner contends that electricity is an essential service and the authorities cannot deprive a citizen of such services. (Para 2)
(B) Forest Conservation - Reserve Forest - Restriction on Utilities - Denial of electricity connection based on the land falling within a Reserve Forest area is argued to be in compliance with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. (Para 3, 4)
(C) Equality and Non-Discrimination - Selective Denial - Allegation that electricity connections were granted to neighbors in the same area while the petitioner was singled out. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the denial of electricity connection to a person occupying land in a Reserve Forest area is legally sustainable given that electricity is an essential service and other neighbors have been granted connections.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conflict between the right to electricity as an essential service and statutory restrictions under the forest (conservation) act, 1980. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's requirement for evidentiary affidavits to determine if the denial of service was discriminatory or legally mandated. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
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.
