Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010276462025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7185/2025 SATYA SONOWAL S/O.- LATE PADMA SONOWAL, R/O- VILLAGE- KANCHAN NAGAR, BEHIND PRATIKSHA HOSPITAL, P.O.- HENGRABARI P.S.- DISPUR, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD. (APDCL) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SIXMILE KAMRUP METRO ASSAM. 3:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER BASISTHA ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD. (APDCL) REPRESENTED BY ITS SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER SIXMILE KAMRUP METRO ASSAM. 4:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 5:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD Page No.# 2/5 OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI-7 6:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KAMRUP EAST DIVISION BAISITHA GHY-29 7:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI HENGRABARI-36 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR DEBA SARMAH, RAKESH CHETRY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, APDCL BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 13.07.2026 Heard Shri. D. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. Gogoi, learned State Counsel, Assam; Shri B. Das, learned counsel for the APDCL. Also heard Shri R.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department, Assam which has been impleaded subsequently. 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is a resident of Kanchan Nagar, occupying a plot of land measuring 1 katha 5 lechas covered by Patta No. 192 (O)/ 764 (N) situated under No.1 Hengrabari Revenue Village, Beltola Mouza, Dispur Revenue Circle, Ward No. 51 in the district of Kamrup (m), Assam. 3. It is contended that while electricity connection has been given to the different Page No.# 3/5 households in the area, such connection has not been provided to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the distance of the petitioner’s house is within a radius of 20 meters from the electricity post which exists and in spite of numerous approach, such connection has not been granted and accordingly, the writ petition has been filed. 4. Shri Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned action is unreasonable and arbitrary and electricity being an essential service, the petitioner cannot be deprived of such service. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of Dilip (Dead) through LRS. Vs. Satish & Ors., reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 810. 5. It, however, appears from the order sheets that there is an involvement of the Forest Department and consequently, a direction was issued to implead the Forest Department. As per the stand of the Forest Department, as put on record by way of an affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 6 on 06.06.2026, the area in question is a part of the Hengrabari Reserve Forest which was notified on 13.01.1992. A specific statement has been made that according to the GPS coordinates, the land is within the reserve forest. 6. Shri Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of GPS coordinate, there cannot be any certainty. He has also submitted that the persons residing in the neighbourhood have been provided with the electricity. It is also contended that the land in question is not forest but revenue land and accordingly, the name of the petitioner is reflected in the Land Bank. It is also contended that the petitioner has applied for a patta under the Basundhara scheme which is pending. 7. The grievance is with regard to providing of electricity connection. While there cannot be any dispute to the proposition that electricity is an essential service which has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip (Dead) Page No.# 4/5 through LRS. (supra), in the instant case, the pleaded stand of the Forest Department is that the area in question falls under the Hengrabari Revenue Forest. There is no dispute to the fact that in this connection, a notification was issued on 13.01.1992. The Forest Department in the affidavit mentioned above has made a specific statement that as per the GPS coordinates, the land is within the reserve forest. For ready reference, the relevant pleadings of the Forest Department are extracted hereinbelow: “5. That at the outset, it is most humbly submitted that the office of the deponent had verified the GPS Coordinates of the petitioners house and the same was found to be inside Hengrabari Reserved Forest and the said fact was communicated to the respondent APDCL authorities vide letter dated 06.01.2026. 6. That the Hengrabari Reserved Forest was notified vide notification dated 13.01.1992 and it is pertinent to mention that as per Section 2 of the Forest Conservation) Act, 1980, no forest land can be used for non-forest purpose without the prior approval of the Central Government.” 8. Though the aforesaid averments are stoutly refuted by Shri Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, the situation would be one where there would be disputed questions of fact which a Writ Court would not be in a position to enter into. It is trite that a Writ Court is not a Court on facts and in this case, the issue is clearly in the realm of disputed questions of fact. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, including the aspect that electricity is an essential commodity, while this writ petition is closed, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court to establish the fact that the area in question is outside the ambit of the reserve forest in which case, the APDCL would be under bounden duty to provide the electricity connection. If such an approach is made, the Forest Department would also be entitled to raise their claim which would be decided by the learned Court in accordance with law. Page No.# 5/5 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant