AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. DJ Saha, learned counsel appearing for the TSECL-respondents.
By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“i)Admit this Writ Petition.
ii) Issue notice upon the Respondents.
iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the action of Respondent No. 1 in disconnecting the electricity supply to the Petitioner's flat bearing Flat No. 4C, 4th Floor, Vinayak Enclave, Plot No. 97/836/C, House No. 191356, Ward No. 19, Agartala, Tripura, on 3 August 2026;
iv) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 1, to forthwith restore the electricity supply to the Petitioner's premises without insisting upon any further documents or conditions beyond those permissible in law;
v)Pass such further writ/writs, order/orders direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice;
vi) Any other relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper.”
The facts of the case, lies in a narrow compass, is that, the petitioner is a flat owner who had purchased a flat being no. ‘4-C’ at 4th Floor in "Vinayak Enclave" from Respondent No. 4 by virtue of Agreement dated 26 August 2015. Alongside, the Agreement a Possession Certificate was also issued by Respondent No. 4 to the Petitioner on 17th March 2017. Pursuant to the Agreement, No Objection Certificate for obtaining electrical connection from Respondent No. 1 was issued to the Petitioner on 27th July 2017. Thereafter, on 24th July 2026 and 30th July 2026, surprisingly Respondent No. 1 issued notices to the Petitioner for production of valid documents for ownership / occupancy of the premises at Vinayak Enclave, to ascertain possession and ownership of the Petitioner. The notices were duly responded by the Petitioner along with furnishing of requisite documents on 31st July 2026. However, in complete disregard of the Petitioner's reply and without communicating any decision thereon or issuing any prior notice of disconnection as contemplated under law, the officials of Respondent No. 1, on 3rd August 2026, arbitrarily disconnected the electricity supply to the Petitioner's flat. The impugned action has been taken without following the due process prescribed under law, thereby causing grave hardship and irreparable prejudice to the Petitioner and his family. Hence, the writ petition.
The contention of Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there is no nexus between the petitioner and respondent-TSECL. The petitioner is bonafide consumer of respondent-TSECL and prior to providing electricity connection the respondent-TSECL has verified all the required documents in relation to the ownership of the petitioners of Flat and on being satisfied provided the connection. It is further submitted that the respondent-TSECL has no authority to disconnect the electricity connection in the said flat of the petitioner. It is also submitted that there is no arrear pending against the petitioners. It is also submitted that there is no complaint against the petitioner of any pilferage or tampering the electricity meter. It is further submitted that the arbitrary disconnection of electricity supply without assigning any reasons or affording an effective opportunity of hearing has rendered the petitioner and his family unable to access an essential public utility. It is further submitted that owing to the disconnection of electricity, the petitioner and his family are unable to carry on their day-to-day household activities and are suffering continuous hardship and inconvenience. It is also submitted that Respondent No. 1 disconnected the electricity supply without conducting any fair or proper enquiry into the documents furnished by the Petitioner and without arriving at any reasoned decision regarding the Petitioner's entitlement to continue receiving electricity supply.
Mr. DJ Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-TSECL has submitted that due to absence of NOC, title document or ownership document, the respondent-TSECL has disconnected the electricity connection. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has submitted that the disconnection is temporary in nature. He has stressed upon clause 8.3(2) of Tripura Electricity Supply Code, 2011 which deals with temporary disconnection. In fine, learned counsel has sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
This court has meticulously perused the record in hand. This court is to be governed by the principle of justice, equity and good conscious. Needless to say, the petitioner is the bonafide consumer under the respondent-TSECL. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is the letter of possession which is in favour of the petitioner and it could be well presumed that the said letter of possession has been issued after receipt of entire consideration amount. Annexure-3 is the No-Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner by dint of which the petitioner made application before the respondent-TSECL for providing domestic electricity connection in his residential flat.
On the last date, when the case was called, learned counsel for respondent-TSECL sought for accommodation for taking necessary instruction from the respondent-TSECL. Request was considered and matter stood adjourned till today. Today when the matter called out no satisfactory instruction has been obtained therein for restoration of the electricity connection in the flat of the petitioners.
It is a case of the petitioner that when he is not in default, there is no reason why the TSECL disconnected his electricity connection. It is seen from the record that the originally NOC was given by the Developer under the capacity of General Power of Attorney which at the later stage was cancelled and in view of the same, the land owner asked the respondent-TSECL to disconnect the power supply to the petitioner which the department was obliged to. Admittedly, the petitioner is consumer under valid consumer ID and he is paying the periodical electricity consumption charges/bills and there are no arrear. Having received the charges regularly, it is not open for the respondents-TSECL to disconnect the supply since the conditions which contemplated in any electricity disconnection are not required to receive or examine any document as accepted by the department at this stage. Insisting for any documents is the issue that arises at the time of receiving application and providing the consumer connection. Having provided the connection and having received payment of the bills regularly, the only scope that is left to the department for disconnecting the supply permanently or temporarily, in the event if they find any tampering the meter, pilferages of any power supply or if the consumers are defaulter. In the present case, this is not of such. Since the respondent-TSECL have already been provided with such documents, now it is not open for the TSECL to give a retrospective effect of the application and insist the consumer to provide the document i.e. NOC or any other document, from the owner.
It is not in dispute that there is private dispute between the owner and the Developer and the owner has not to resolve the issue adopted the infesting method of creating hardship to the occupant of the flat and the present occupant is none other person but purchaser of the flat and since he is innocent and committed no violation of any specific rules or guidelines, it is not proper on the part of the respondent-TSECL to put him into any kind of inconvenience. The respondent-TSECL is conducting business with the consumers in the form of service and when there is no violation on the part of the consumer, it is not open for the department to invoke steps for disconnection of power supply to their residence.
Clause 8.3(2) of the Tripura Electricity Supply Code, 2011, in connection with temporary disconnection, is quoted here-in-below:
“If the conduct/continuance of any business/industry/activity being carried out in any premises becomes unlawful due to lack of necessary permission or withdrawal of permission from the competent authority;.” On a bare perusal of clause 8.3(2) of the Code, 2011, it is apparent that the same is not relevant to the present fact and circumstances of the case as the said clause very specifically indicates that in the event of any person committing any act which is unlawful or violation the supply would be disconnected, but here is a case where the petitioner is family person and obtained the electricity connection under domestic purpose and there is no iota of evidence to show that there is any violation or conducting any unlawful activity with the electricity meter that is provided to the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that for the purpose of domestic power supply the meter was obtained and the petitioner is using the same for industrial purpose or any other activities. Since the respondents are admitting that there is no violation committed by the petitioner, thus, this court is of the view that the infesting method adopted by the owner of the land through the respondent-TSECL, if all fairness, the respondent-TSECL instead of nodding the head to the tunes of the owner of land could have advised him to avail the remedies under law instead of proceeding for disconnection of the power supply of the petitioner.
It is trite law that electricity department cannot legally disconnect the power supply of a consumer who has no default, unpaid dues, or proven violations of terms and conditions. Arbitrary or unjustified disconnection of an essential service without legal grounds or statutory notice is illegal. The respondent-TSECL has no authority to cut the power supply in the residential flat of the petitioner arbitrarily basing on unverified assumptions and basing on other instructions, without establishing a clear breach or default by the petitioner. Electricity is an essential basic amenity, and authorities cannot deprive a lawful occupant or regular consumer of power due to extraneous disputes or absent default. Here in this case, without any fault on the part of the petitioner, the respondent-TSECL caused grave injustice and hardship the petitioner. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the actions of the respondents are high-handed and without application of mind and, the decision of the respondents in disconnecting the power supply is also found to be arbitrary.
Accordingly, the decision of the respondent-TSECL is set-aside. The respondents-TSECL are directed to restore the power supply in the residential flat of the petitioner forthwith. Since the respondent-TSECL has caused irreparable loss and injury and hardship and mental agony to the petitioner, this court is inclined to impose cost of Rs.2,000/- upon the respondent-TSECL. Accordingly, the respondent-TSECL should pay Rs.2,000/- as cost to the petitioner forthwith. It is made clear that the recovery of the fine money shall be exclusively borne by the official respondents under their personal capacity, who are responsible for their arbitrary action and not from the department. The concerned Officers of the respondent-TSECL shall pay and obtain receipt of the money from the petitioner.
In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.