Allowed

Ram Prasad Das v. the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 May 2024WP(C)/2315/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court directed the APDCL to grant a temporary electricity connection to an occupier pending the outcome of a title suit, relying on Supreme Court precedent that electricity is a basic amenity. The Court also ordered disclosure of documents regarding the pending title suit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to apply for temporary electricity connection; APDCL to dispose of application earliest; Petitioner directed to share documents with Respondent 6 within a week.

Ram Prasad Das Vs the Assam Power Distribution… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010086702024

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2315/2024

¶5

RAM PRASAD DAS

¶6

S/O- RAM CHARAN HARIJAN @ RAM CHANDRA HARIJAN, R/O- HOUSE NO. 39 PITALKARKHANA, BISHNUPUR, P.O. GOPINATHNAGAR, P.S. BHARALUMUKH, GUWAHATI-781016, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 5 ORS (APDCL), REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN 4TH FLOOR, BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GHY-781001.

¶9

2:THE JOINT SECRETARY DEPARTMENT

¶10

POWER AND ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781006.

¶11

3:THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (ASEB)

¶12

REP. BY SECRETARY 4TH FLOOR BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GHY-781001.

¶13

4:THE GENERAL MANAGER / MANAGING DIRECTOR APDCL SIX MILE GUWAHATI

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

PIN- 781022.

¶16

5:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER KALAPHAR ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION APDCL LAR KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI PIN- 781016. 6:RAM AKBAL DAS PITALKARKHANA BISHNUPUR P.O. GOPINATHNAGAR P.S. BHARALUMUKH GHY DIST. KAMRUP(M) PIN- 781016

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : G UDDIN

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

03.05.2024

¶22

Heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the APDCL and Ms. S. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

¶23

2 . Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a Title Suit No.98/2024 pending between the petitioner and the respondent No. 6, filed by the petitioner, seeking a declaration of possessory right over the suit land.

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

3 . The petitioner’s case is that the respondent No. 6 has illegally cut off the electricity for which Misc.(J) Case No. 179/2024 has been filed in Title Suit No. 98/2024, praying for restoration of electricity and water supply and other amenities.

¶26

4 . On a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner had initiated two parallel proceedings for restoration of electricity connection, the petitioner’s counsel submits that the APDCL, who is to restore the electricity connection, is not a party in Misc.(J) Case No. 179/2024 or in Title Suit No. 98/2024.

¶27

5 . The counsel for the respondent no.6 submits that the possessory rights of the petitioner in the property is under consideration in Title Suit No.98/2024 pending before the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati and the documents regarding the same has not been given to the respondent no.6..

¶28

6 . In the case of Dilip (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Satish & Others , reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1485 , the Supreme Court has held that the electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived of. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue a No Objection Certificate. All that the Electricity Supply Authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question.

¶29

7 . In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that if it is found that the petitioner is in occupation of the premises in question, he should be granted a temporary electricity connection by the APDCL authorities.

¶30

8 . Accordingly, the petitioner is given the liberty to make an application to the

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

APDCL authorities, for grant of a temporary connection and the same should be provided by the APDCL authorities, if the petitioner is in occupation of the premises for which the electricity connection is sought for. If the petitioner makes an application for temporary connection of electricity, the same should be considered and disposed of at the earliest.

¶33

9 . The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However, it may be clarified that this Court has not made any finding or observation with regard to the grievance of the parties in connection with Title Suit No.98/2024.

¶34

10. The petitioner is also directed to give all pleadings/documents relating to T.S. No.98/2024 to the respondent no.6 within a week from today.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Ram Prasad Das v. the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad Das v. the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hafizur Rahman Prodhani Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Vinayak Sales Corporation Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Chitrakar Dev Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ranu Choudhury Vs the Board Secondary Education Assam and 6 Ors.

Mozaffor Hussain, Vs Bikram Kairi, IAS and 3 Ors.

Niranjan Kumar Ray Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.