“No One Can Survive Without Electricity In Modern Times”, Occupier Entitled To Connection Even If Property Is Disputed: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that in modern times no one can survive without electricity and therefore the right to electricity is also part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 417]

Directing the Electricity Department to supply connection to the petitioner's premises, the bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed:

"no-one, in the modern days can survive without electricity, and therefore, the right to electricity is also a right to life and liberty in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India". 

Thus, the bench directed:

"The respondents are directed to release the electricity connection within a period of 07 days to the petitioner in the premises, where she is presently staying and occupying the same as per mandate of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 upon receipt of copy of this order subject to the petitioner complying with the other norms". 

A petition was filed by the petitioner against the action of the respondent authorities in disconnecting the temporary electricity connection provided to the petitioner's house in Gwalior based on a complaint filed by respondent no. 5, who is the mother of the petitioner.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that she has a 1/7th share in the disputed property pursuant to a compromise reached in civil proceedings in which her mother was also a party. She submitted that she had been residing in her portion of the property with her family. However, the disputes subsequently arose between her and her mother, who allegedly interfered with her peaceful possession and obstructed the supply of water and electricity. 

The petitioner submitted that she was granted a temporary domestic connection on August 20, 2025, and regularly paid the bill. However, acting on her mother's complaint, the authorities disconnected it on August 27, 2025. The petitioner subsequently applied for a fresh connection. 

The petitioner argued that the absence of electricity was causing hardships to her family particular children who study in classes 9 and 10. 

Relying on Section 32 of the Electricity Act, the petitioner argued that electricity distribution authorities are legally obligated to provide a connection to an owner or occupier of premises, subject to compliance with applicable statutory requirements and payment of charges under Sections 45-47 of the Act.

The counsel for the respondent argued that an electricity connection cannot be released in favour of the petitioner unless she establishes her right over the premises in question. 

The court noted that the petitioner had admitted documents showing the compromise entered into between the parties in civil proceedings. Further, the authorities earlier provided a temporary electricity connection to the petitioner. She had also placed electricity bills for the period. 

The court noted, "In the facts of the present case, the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5 essentially relates to the share, right and possession in respect of the premises in question. The electricity distribution authorities, while considering an application for electricity connection, are not required to adjudicate upon complicated questions relating to title, partition or inter se civil rights of the parties". 

Examining the Electricity Act of 1910 and the Act of 2003, the court noted that the Parliament consciously departed from the word "lawful" in the 2003 Act.

The bench held, 

"petitioner has the right to claim electricity connection as an 'Occupier' under Section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003. However, this Court makes it very clear that whatever observations have been made in this order are only to be construed and interpreted in the context of the petitioner's right to have electricity so long as she remains in possession of the property in question". 

Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and directed the company to supply electric connection to the premises. 

For Petitioner: Advocate Arshad Ali M. Haque

For State: Government Advocate Shiraz Qureshi

For Electricity Company: Advocate Prateek Kulshrestha

For Respondent no 5: Advocate Himanshi Pathak