The Calcutta High Court has directed the Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (CESC) Ltd to grant a new power connection within three weeks to a woman embroiled in a property dispute, ruling that access to electricity is an essential requirement for a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A division bench comprising Justices Shampa Sarkar and Arjun Ray Mukherjee set aside a lower court order, establishing that even an occupant facing eviction or categorized as a trespasser cannot be deprived of power supply while occupying a premises, provided a competent civil court has not issued a final eviction order.
Constitutional Link To Essential Services
In its August 10 ruling, the bench emphasized that electricity is an essential commodity directly tied to the fundamental right to live with dignity. The court noted that utilizing a property without electricity is virtually impossible, making the utility indispensable regardless of temporary non-residence or ongoing disputes.
The judges clarified, however, that granting an electricity line does not bestow any legal title, ownership, or equity upon the applicant. The utility connection will remain strictly subject to the final outcome of any civil litigation pending between the parties.
Jurisdiction And Background Of The Dispute
The matter reached the division bench after the petitioner appealed a June 2022 single-judge decision. The woman had applied to the CESC for a fresh connection based on a claimed right of possession over the premises. The utility company stalled the application due to objections raised by the landlords.
The property owners disputed her possession and legal standing, alleging that the transfer agreement she produced was a fabricated and invalid document, while citing an eviction lawsuit currently pending against her in a trial court.
The single judge had initially disposed of her petition by directing her to seek a resolution from the District Magistrate. Challenging this outcome, advocates Tarak Nath Halder, Sagnik Chatterjee, and Sayan Mukherjee argued on behalf of the woman that the magistrate lacked authority over the issue.
The division bench upheld this jurisdictional argument, clarifying that a District Magistrate is empowered to intervene only when a power distribution licensee needs to draw electrical lines across a third party’s property. Because the woman claimed direct possession of the target property, the court held that executive referral was improper and ordered the CESC to fulfill the connection request directly.
