‘Can’t deny to even trespasser’: Calcutta High Court orders power connection for woman

“It is well-settled that even a trespasser is entitled to electricity, which is an essential commodity. It may be noted that the property is temporarily not being used. However, quite understandably, the use of the property without electricity is quite impossible,” the court said on August 10.

The bench continued, “Article 21 of the Constitution of India ensures a life of dignity and, as such, the grant of electricity is intrinsically connected with a dignified existence.”

Pending eviction suit

The woman had approached the CESC seeking a new electricity connection for a property over which she claimed a right of possession. CESC did not process her application, citing resistance from the private respondents/landlords.
The respondents disputed the woman’s claim, alleging that the agreement she relied on was legally invalid and a fabricated document. They also questioned her right, title and possession over the property and pointed to a pending eviction suit against her before the trial court.

The single judge disposed of her petition, allowing her to approach the district magistrate for a decision after hearing both sides. The woman challenged this order before the division bench. Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Tarak Nath Halder, Sagnik Chatterjee and Sayan Mukherjee submitted that the district magistrate had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute concerning her right to obtain an electricity connection.

The landlords argued that the agreement for transfer relied upon by the woman to claim the electricity connection was legally invalid and a manufactured document.

‘Can’t deny power connection’

The high court observed that the district magistrate can decide a dispute only when an electricity licensing company needs to draw a power line over a third party’s property to provide a connection. That situation did not arise here, as the woman was claiming a right of possession over the property.

The court further held that the woman could not be denied an electricity connection merely because she was residing elsewhere. Until a competent civil court passes an appropriate eviction order, she could not be barred from receiving electricity supply. Referring to Article 21 of the Constitution, the court observed that the right to live with dignity is intrinsically connected with access to electricity.

However, the court clarified that providing electricity would not establish or recognise the woman’s ownership, title or interest in the property. The connection would remain subject to any subsequent order passed by a competent civil court.