Obstructing Meter Inspection Justifies Power Disconnection Under Electricity Act: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the disconnection of an electricity connection after the consumer repeatedly denied access to officials for meter inspection and replacement, holding that the prior notice issued under Section 163 of the Electricity Act, 2003 satisfied the statutory requirement and that the licensee was entitled to disconnect supply upon continued obstruction.Justice...
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the disconnection of an electricity connection after the consumer repeatedly denied access to officials for meter inspection and replacement, holding that the prior notice issued under Section 163 of the Electricity Act, 2003 satisfied the statutory requirement and that the licensee was entitled to disconnect supply upon continued obstruction.
Justice Amrita Sinha further refused to direct reconnection of electricity through a meter standing in the name of a consumer who had died nearly 27 years ago, observing that electricity cannot continue indefinitely through an obsolete meter registered in the name of a deceased person without compliance with the statutory procedure for change of ownership.
"The Electricity Act does not permit any person to enjoy electricity without following the due provisions of law," the Court observed.
Background
The petitioner challenged a notice dated March 23, 2026 issued by the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL), informing her that electricity supply had been disconnected after officials, accompanied by police personnel, were denied access to inspect the premises despite an earlier direction of the High Court. She contended that the disconnection was illegal as no prior notice under Section 163 of the Electricity Act had been served and asserted that she had no outstanding electricity dues.
WBSEDCL argued that repeated attempts to inspect the meter had been frustrated because access to the premises was consistently denied. It also submitted that the meter, manufactured in 2002, had become obsolete, its guarantee had expired in 2007, and it could no longer accurately record consumption, resulting in estimated billing and revenue loss. The utility maintained that it was willing to install a new smart meter at an accessible location, but the petitioner refused to cooperate.
The record further showed that the petitioner had earlier challenged notices issued by WBSEDCL requiring access to the premises for inspection and meter replacement. Those proceedings culminated in dismissal of the writ petition, with liberty granted to the utility to exercise its powers under Section 163 of the Electricity Act.
Court's Findings
Rejecting the contention that no prior notice had been served, the Court held that the notice dated February 23, 2026 itself constituted notice under Section 163 of the Electricity Act. The notice required the petitioner to facilitate meter reading and replacement after repeated failed attempts by meter readers to gain access to the premises.
The Court observed that the petitioner had challenged the very notice in earlier proceedings, which were dismissed. Consequently, it could not be argued that there had been no prior notice before disconnection.
The Court noted that Section 163 authorises a distribution licensee to enter premises after informing the occupier, and further permits disconnection where the consumer continues to refuse entry despite written notice. It also referred to Regulation 55 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission, which grants utility officials access to consumers' premises for meter reading, testing, repair and replacement.
The Court further declined to order restoration of supply through the existing meter because it remained registered in the name of the petitioner's deceased husband, who had died in 1999. It found that the petitioner had failed to complete the formalities for transfer of ownership, including submission of the necessary documents and affidavit.
Observing that no court could direct reconnection through an obsolete meter registered in the name of a deceased consumer, the Court held that such relief would be contrary to law.
The Court also rejected the petitioner's plea that she should be treated as a "deemed consumer", holding that statutory requirements for transfer of the electricity connection could not be bypassed merely because she had been using electricity for several years.
While refraining from imposing costs considering that the petitioner was a senior citizen and widow, the Court criticised her conduct throughout the litigation. It observed that she had repeatedly resisted inspection, refused to cooperate in resolving the dispute, made reckless allegations against WBSEDCL and its counsel, and unnecessarily prolonged what was otherwise a simple dispute capable of early resolution.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Smt. Mira Shaw v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors.
Case No.: WPA No. 10160 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026