Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010120852025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3140/2025 RAJ KUMAR RAVA S/O LATE SANTOSH RAVA, R/O FATASHIL AMBARI, P.O. GOPINATH NAGAR, P.S. FATASIL AMBARI, DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN 781016 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, POWER DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL) TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN PALTAN BAZAR BIJULI BHAWAN GUWAHATI-781001 3:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL) KALAPAHAR ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION ASSAM GUWAHATI-19 4:SMT. BHARATI RAVA W/O LATE SANTOSH RAVA R/O FATASHIL AMBARI P.O. GOPINATH NAGAR P.S. FATASIL AMBARI DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN 781016 5:SMT. PRITI RAVA Page No.# 2/5 D/O LATE SANTOSH RAVA R/O FATASHIL AMBARI P.O. GOPINATH NAGAR P.S. FATASIL AMBARI DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN 78101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A MANNAF, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, MR R SARKAR(R-4,5),MR P AGARWAL (R-4,5) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 20.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 & 5 and Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the APDCL. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner’s father was the owner of a plot of land covered by Dag No.361 of K.P. Patta No.1079 located at Village-Phatasil under Beltola Mouza in Kamrup (M) District, Assam. Two buildings stood on the land measuring 01 Katha 7.64 Lechas. One of the buildings is a concrete structure and the other is an Assam Type house. The petitioner’s case is that he is living in the Assam Type House, while the petitioner’s mother and sister, i.e respondent nos.4 & 5, are living in the smaller concrete building. 3. During absence of the petitioner from his house, the mother of the petitioner had somehow managed to have the electricity connection Page No.# 3/5 disconnected from the Assam Type House occupied by the petitioner. The same had occurred 5 to 6 months back. The petitioner’s counsel submits that on a prayer made to the APDCL to restore the electricity connection to his premises, the APDCL had rejected the prayer of the petitioner, on the ground that the electricity could be restored, only after a No Objection Certificate (NOC) was issued by the respondent nos.4 & 5 to the petitioner. 4. On a query made by this Court to the petitioner’s counsel, as to whether the petitioner had any claim regarding the right, title and interest to the building occupied by the respondent nos.4 & 5, the petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner has no objection if the building occupied by the respondent nos.4 & 5 is mutated in the name of the respondent nos.4 & 5. He submits that the right, title and interest to the said property occupied by the respondent nos.4 & 5 can be given to the respondent nos.4 & 5. He also submits that he will not cause any disturbance or make any problem with the occupation of the concrete building being occupied by the respondent nos.4 & 5. 5. Mr. R. Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 & 5 submits that though no Title Suit has been filed by any of the parties, with regard to the land in question, the respondent nos.4 & 5 have submitted a complaint to the Municipality, regarding the land holding which has been allegedly mutated in the name of the petitioner. 6. Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the APDCL submits that temporary electricity connection can be provided to the petitioner, in terms of the judgment Page No.# 4/5 of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Satish & Others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 810, so long as the petitioner is able to prove that he is in occupation of the premises in question. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. The prayer of the present writ petitioner is for grant of a new/fresh electricity connection to the Assam Type house occupied by the petitioner, allegedly standing over the land covered by Dag No.361, K.P. Patta No.1079, located at Fatasil. 9. It is not disputed by either of the parties that the petitioner is presently residing in the Assam Type house. In the case of Dilip (Dead) Through Lrs. (supra) the Supreme Court has held that electricity is a basic amenity which a person cannot be deprived of. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue No Objection Certificate. The Supreme Court further held that what the electricity supply authority is required to examine, is whether the applicant for an electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question. The above judgment of the Apex Court has clearly provided that a temporary electricity connection can be given to a tenant also, provided that he is in occupation of the premises in question. In the present case, the petitioner is apparently in possession of the Assam Type house. As there appears to be some dispute with regard to the land holding of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that as and when the petitioner applies for an electricity connection to the APDCL, the APDCL should consider granting temporary electricity connection, after they come to a finding that the petitioner Page No.# 5/5 is in occupation of the premises in question. The grant of a new/fresh electricity connection should only be decided by the concerned authorities, after it is verified that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the right, title and interest over the property of the petitioner’s late father, wherein the petitioner, the respondent nos.4 & 5 are residing, in different houses. In the event the petitioner submits an application for issuance of a temporary electricity connection, the same should be disposed of expeditiously and preferably within a period of 1 (one) week from the date of receipt of the application and a certified copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant