Electricity Supply Can't Be Denied To Occupant Due To Ownership Dispute: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Justice Ninala Jayasurya was dealing with a writ petition filed by a 62-year old woman who had purchased a property in 2000, and was running a hotel (commercial purpose) on the premises while residing there (domestic purpose). However, a dispute arose when another individual (Respondent 7) obtained an ex-parte civil court decree related to possession of the property. While legal proceedings to challenge that decree were still pending, respondent 7 approached the DISCOM authorities and subsequently the electricity supply to the premises was disconnected.

Challenging the disconnection of electricity as arbitrary and violative of her fundamental rights under Article 19 and 21, the petitioner argued that she was still in lawful possession of the property, and further stated that there were neither any pending electricity dues nor was the connection attained unauthorisedly. It was further submitted that while civil litigation had not attained finality, respondent 7 compelled the petitioner to vacate the subject matter premises, and had ingeniously got the power supply disconnected, only with the underhanded motive to exert pressure on the petitioner and force her eviction. The petitioner thus submitted that power supply was directed to be restored by declaring the action of the DISCOM authorities as arbitrary, the petitioner's rights will be jeopardised.

Against this backdrop, the Single-Judge held,

“… the civil litigation between the parties cannot be lost sight of and mere pendency of a civil litigation cannot be a ground, in the absence of any order restraining/continuation of power supply to the consumer, it cannot be denied. If the decree holder/registered owner is armed with a decree, the same has to be executed in accordance with the Law and under guise of the same, no other actions shall be adopted to drive the occupant to vacate the premises, much less by getting the power supply disconnected.”

The Single-Judge thus concluded,

“… the disconnection of supply, when the petitioner is still in possession of the subject matter premises, even at the instance of the 7th respondent / decree holder cannot be sustained.."

The DISCOM authorities had submitted that the power supply was disconnected in the normal course of official duties and in accordance with the Electricity Supply Code. They further stated that prior notice was given to the petitioner, and that the present petition deserved to be dismissed because an alternative remedy was available under the Electricity Act, 2003. However, the Court noted that till the time the petitioner is lawfully evicted, she would be entitled to the supply of unrestricted electricity.

Additionally, Respondent 7 had submitted that he was the lawful owner of the property and had purposely gotten the electricity connections disconnected to avoid any future liability on him.

The Court noted that the apprehension of Respondent 7 was “well-founded”, and thus directed the petitioner to deposit six months average consumption charges prior to the date of disconnection. Further, the Court held,

"The petitioner shall pay the current consumption charges regularly and in the event of committing any default in payment of the monthly current consumption charges continuously for two months, shall forego the amount deposited. The petitioner would be entitled to reconnection of power supply only on fresh deposit of six months average consumption charges.”

Allowing the petition, the Court gave liberty to the petitioner to make applications for release of power supply to the premises, whereafter the DISCOM authorities were directed to examine the same and release power supply depending upon the name of usage.

Case Number: WRIT PETITION No: 2270 of 2026

Case Title: SHAIK SHAJAHAN BEE ALIAS SHAJAHAN ALIAS SHAJAHA v. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OPERATIONS and Ors

Click Here To Read/Download Order