'Right To Electricity Part Of Article 21': AP High Court Quashes Permanent Rejection Of Mill's Application For Power Connection

Holding that the right to electricity is an integral and inextricable part of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the permanent rejection of a flour mill owner's application for a new electricity connection and directed the distribution licensee to process it as per the Electricity Act provisions.

The Court held that even if an electricity connection application is incomplete, the licensee must assign specific reasons for its rejection. Rejecting an application by merely marking it “Permanently Rejected” on the online portal, without reasons, was held to be illegal and a transgression of the principles of natural justice.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam in a writ petition filed by a resident of Parampeta Village, Vizianagaram District, who intended to establish a small flour mill to earn his livelihood.

The Court observed:

"...it is crystal clear that the right to electricity is an integral and inextricable part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and if there is any violation of the same, it affects the fundamental rights enunciated in Part III of the Constitution of India. In view of the significance & importance attached to electricity as detailed above, right from the Vedic period till the present 32 contemptuous generation i.e., Gen-Z and Alpha., the usage of electricity in multiple dimensions basic fundamental thing for minute to minute work"

The court said that the petitioner had categorically mentioned that he has to start flour mill business in his property and had applied for electricity connection by paying the pre-requisite charges along with No-Objection Certificate dated 20.09.2025 issued by the concerned Civic Authority. The court noted that the petitioner's application was permanently rejected by the Electricity Company on their website portal without assigning any reasons at all.

"Even if the petitioner's application was incomplete due to lack of proper enclosures at that juncture also, it is the duty of the 2nd respondent (EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY) Corporation authorities to give specific reasons for rejection of the petitioner's application. Whereas, the 2nd respondent Corporation simply mentioned in their online portal that the petitioner's application status as “Permanently Rejected”, without any reasons at all. Such an action from the 2nd respondent Corporation on the primary ground without giving specific reasons, is not only illegal, but also clear transgression of principles of natural justice. Moreover, the right to know the reasons for decision which adversely affects person or property., is a basic right of every litigant (whether the forum be judicial or administrative)," the court said. 

The petitioner claimed to be the owner and possessor of property at Parampeta Village, where he intended to establish a small flour mill. After obtaining a No-Objection Certificate from the concerned Gram Panchayat, he applied for a Category-II electricity service connection by paying the requisite fee.

According to the petitioner, electricity officials brought the service connection meter to his premises in October 2025, but stopped the installation midway due to local interference. He thereafter submitted a representation seeking reconsideration of his application, but no action was taken.

The petitioner contended that Section 43 of the Electricity Act read with Clause 5.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply and the applicable APERC Regulations mandated supply upon a complete application, with reasons to be given for any rejection.

The Corporation relied on an earlier electricity connection at the same premises, which stood in the name of the petitioner's wife. The connection had been disconnected for non-payment of charges. The Corporation submitted that electricity supply could be provided if the requisite amounts were paid, subject to fulfilment of the statutory requirements.

The Court noted that the Corporation had neither filed a counter affidavit disputing the petitioner's claim nor produced any bills or communications regarding the alleged arrears. It further noted that the alleged arrears had not been cited as a ground for permanently rejecting the application. The earlier connection relied upon by the Corporation also stood in the petitioner's wife's name, and not the petitioner's.

The Court found that the petitioner had submitted the application, undertaking, requisite fee and No-Objection Certificate from the competent civic authority.

The Court further held that “the right to electricity is an integral and inextricable part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India”, observing that violation of the same affects the fundamental rights enunciated in Part III of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the permanent rejection of the petitioner's application and directed the Corporation to reconsider and process the application afresh, after collecting any applicable charges, in accordance with Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the relevant Rules, within two weeks from receipt of the order.

The Court also directed the State Government to require all distribution licensees to submit quarterly reports on electricity connection applications, including processing time and outcome, and to review them and issue appropriate directions to ensure compliance with the Electricity Act and relevant Rules.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.

Case Title: Kadagala Srinivas Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case No.: W.P. No. 8103 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Yamini Sahu

Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Energy; V.V. Satish, Standing Counsel for APEPDCL

Click Here To Read/Download Order