Shri. Sushital Das Vs the Superintending Engineer and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shri. Sushital Das Vs the Superintending Engineer and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Continuation of the restored electricity supply to the petitioner's house without hindrance until disposal of the first appeal pending before the Appellate Court, subject to the final outcome of that appeal; writ petition and CAN/1/2026 disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the disconnection of the petitioner's electricity connection on the ground that it was a temporary connection limited to two years under the Andaman and Nicobar Electricity Regulation, despite the pending title dispute and first appeal, is sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

Electricity is an essential service and a concomitant of the right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; denial of electricity on the ground of pendency of a title dispute or absence of ownership in revenue records is not sustainable.

Ratio / Principle

Grant of electricity connection is dehors title and ownership; the doctrine of lis pendens does not operate to deprive a person of basic amenities; where a first appeal is pending before the competent Appellate Court, status quo as regards essential services ought to be maintained to avoid irreparable hardship and prevent the appeal from being rendered infructuous.

Key takeaways

A regulation providing for temporary connection for two years cannot be construed to mean automatic disconnection thereafter, particularly when the occupant continues in settled possession and the civil dispute regarding title remains sub judice.ratio¶17
In view of the respondents' undertaking not to disconnect supply until disposal of the pending appeal, the restored electricity service shall remain undisturbed and the respondent authorities shall continue to provide electricity without hindrance, such supply being subject to and abiding by the final outcome of the appeal.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition WPA/176/2026 (with IA CAN/1/2026), High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, decided 21.04.2026 by Smita Das De, J. The petitioner, in possession of land (Survey Nos. 56 & 57, Hasmatabad Village, Ferrargunj Tehsil, South Andaman) recorded in his brother's name, whose title suit T.S. No. 144 of 2015 was dismissed and whose first appeal before the District Judge, A&N Islands is pending, challenged the disconnection of his temporary electricity connection on 13.04.2026 on the ground that temporary connections cannot subsist beyond two years under the Andaman and Nicobar Electricity Regulation. Holding: electricity is an essential service and a concomitant of the right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution; denial of electricity on the ground of a pending title dispute or absence of ownership in revenue records is unsustainable; grant of electricity connection is dehors title and ownership; lis pendens does not deprive a person of basic amenities; status quo in essential services ought to be maintained while a first appeal is pending (relying on Chamali Singh vs. State of U.P, (1996) 2 SCC 549); and a two-year temporary-connection regulation does not mandate automatic disconnection where the occupant is in settled possession and the title dispute is sub judice. Recording the department's instruction that the connection stood restored with an undertaking of no further disconnection till disposal of the appeal, the Court directed that supply continue undisturbed, subject to the final outcome of the appeal, and disposed of the writ petition and CAN/1/2026; allegations in the petition stand deemed denied as affidavits were not filed.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

WPA/176/2026 IA No. CAN/1/2026

Shri. Sushital Das

Vs.

The Superintending Engineer and others

Ms. Yasmeen Begum … for the petitioner Mr. S.C.Mishra … for the respondents

April 21, 2026 [AKB] Item No.14

The petitioner in the instant case is in possession of the landed property bearing Survey No. 56 & 57 area measuring about 0.08 hectares situated at Hasmatabad Village, Ferrargunj Tehsil, South Andaman District. The entire land is being recorded in the name of the petitioner’s brother Shri. Inder Kumar Das.

Apropos the fact of the case, the petitioner filed a suit before the Civil Judge Senior Division at Port Blair being T.S. No. 144 of 2015 for possessory right, title and interest and permanent injunction, but the same has been dismissed. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred a first appeal before the District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. An application for providing electricity connection in the house constructed upon the schedule property has been filed before the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division and the same has been disposed of directing inter alia, the electricity authorities to provide temporary electricity connection to the residence of the petitioner.

2

It is submitted that on 13.04.2026 the officials from the Electricity Department visited the house of the petitioner and disconnected the electricity connection on the ground that the same has been provided to the petitioner on a temporary basis and could not exist more than two years as per Andaman and Nicobar Electricity Regulation, which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition.

Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a instruction of the department from which it transpires that the electricity connection has already been restored and shall not be disconnected further till the disposal of the appeal pending before the Appellate Court. The instruction of the electricity department has been kept on record.

It is well settled that electricity is an essential service and a concomitant of the right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Denial of electricity on the ground of pendency of a title dispute or absence of ownership in revenue records is not sustainable.

The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in the case of Chamali Singh vs. State of U.P reported at (1996) 2 SCC 549 that the right to shelter includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, pure air, water, electricity etc. Grant of electricity connection is dehors the title and ownership. The doctrine of lis pendens does not operate to deprive a person of basic amenities. Where a first appeal is pending before the competent Appellate Court, status quo as regards essential service ought to be maintained to avoid irreparable hardship to prevent the appeal from being rendered infructuous.

3

A regulation providing for temporary connection for two years cannot be construed to mean automatic disconnection thereafter, particularly when the occupant continues in settled possession and the civil dispute regarding title remains sub judice.

Having heard the parties and upon perusing the records, I am of the considered view that since the respondent authorities have already undertaken not to disconnect the electricity supply until the disposal of the appeal pending before the Appellate Court, the service that has already been restored to the house of the petitioner shall remain undisturbed and the respondent authorities shall continue to provide electricity without any hindrance. Such supply of electricity shall be subject to, and abide by the final outcome of the appeal pending before the Appellate Court.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. Accordingly CAN/1/2026 is also disposed of.

Since affidavit have not been filed the allegations made in the petition shall deemed to have been denied and not admitted.

(Smita Das De, J.)