The Allahabad High Court has held that the Railway Administration cannot refuse an electricity connection on the ground that the premises stand on private land, where the site lies in the midst of Railway property and the Railway alone is in a position to supply electricity.

It held that access to electricity is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that the connection ought to have been granted unless the law disentitled the applicant.

The bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran held,

“Thus it is the abundant duty of the respondents to ensure that the petitioner have accessibility to basic human need and in modern times, electricity is an indispensable need to live.”

A temple stands within the Railway Colony at Ballia, where the petitioner's deceased father, Mahant Aniruddha Das, was the Mahant. An electricity connection had been given to him by the Railway authorities under directions issued by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in December 1978, and continued to be used by the petitioner's brother, Makardhwaj Das.

After the father's death, the petitioner's request for a fresh connection, or for transfer of the existing one to his name through a sub-meter, was turned down, the Railway citing a dispute between the two brothers. The rejection further proceeded on the ground that houses stood on private land appurtenant to the temple, and that a Railway Board letter barred the Railway Administration from giving connections on private land.

Counsel for the Railway relied on a Railway Board order permitting connections to private parties and government departments only where they were connected with Railway working and were authorised occupants of Railway land.

The Court observed that the place at which the petitioner sought a connection lay within property belonging to the Railways.

“it is clear that the Railway have denied granting of electricity connection to the petitioner citing certain reasons since the place where the petitioner wants an electricity connection is situated in the midst of the property belonging to the Railways and, therefore, it can be fairly presumed that an electricity connection can only be granted by the Railway Authority.”

The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 is not confined to the basic animal needs of man, and that living as a human being in an organised society is not possible without adequate living space, a safe and decent structure, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity and sanitation.

It relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Chameli Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another, where the right to shelter was held to take in all the infrastructure necessary to live and develop as a human being, electricity among it, and in Dilip (Dead) v. Satish and others, where electricity was held to be a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived, the supply authority needing only to examine whether the applicant occupies the premises. A coordinate Bench in Preeti Sharma v. State of U.P. and 7 others had likewise treated access to a connection as a fundamental right under Article 21.

The Court recorded that the petitioner's residence at the place was not in dispute.

“In the given case, the electricity connection to the petitioner ought to have been granted by the Railway Authorities except under the condition where the law disentitles the same. It is a matter of concern that although the respondents do not dispute the living of the petitioner at the place but have denied electrticity connection to him and have thereby forced him to live without it for last more than a decade.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders dated 26.7.2011 and 9.5.2012, and directed the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur to provide an electricity connection to the petitioner within 30 days of the presentation of a certified copy of the order, unless there was a statutory impediment.