The Calcutta High Court has refused to halt the restoration of electricity to residents of a dilapidated and disputed building, ruling that access to power is an essential amenity linked to the constitutional guarantee of dignified living.
A division bench comprising Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee affirmed that living without power deprives individuals of a meaningful civilized life. The bench, however, explicitly stated in its August 27 order that restoring electricity does not grant occupants any legal right to remain on the property or establish any equity in their favor.
The court emphasized that its intervention was strictly limited to ensuring basic utility access and would have no bearing on pending municipal actions or property ownership disputes before civil courts.
Safety Hazards and Initial Disconnection
The dispute originated when the power distributor, Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation, disconnected the building’s electricity after detecting water seepage near the main meter board, which presented severe electrocution and fire hazards.
In response, the occupants approached the high court seeking immediate relief. On August 6, a single-judge bench directed the utility provider to restore the connection once the residents submitted formal applications and deposited the requisite service fees within two working days.
Under that directive, the distributor was instructed to remove the hazardous wiring to enable structural repairs to the damaged wall and meter board. The occupants were permitted to carry out these repairs after notifying municipal authorities and to install an adjacent meter board on an exterior wall in coordination with the utility provider. Following the completion of safety-compliant repairs, the power supply was subsequently restored.
Landlords’ Objections Dismissed
The property owners challenged the single judge’s directive before the division bench, arguing that the structure was severely compromised and subject to ongoing proceedings initiated by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation under Section 412A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
Counsel for the landlords contended that the occupants possessed no lawful claim to the property and warned that maintaining power supply might be construed as judicial recognition of their occupancy, potentially allowing them to claim additional legal equities.
Counsel representing the occupants maintained that municipal challenges were proceeding separately and should not impede basic utility access.
Declining to disrupt the restored connection, the division bench ruled that utility access could never be used to establish property rights or determine legal occupancy, leaving all substantive disputes over the premises to be resolved through appropriate municipal and civil proceedings.
