Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010270602025 2026:GAU-AS:7314 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7088/2025 JAYANTAJIT GOGOI SON OF LATE BABULAL GOGOI, RESIDENT OF 1/2 GHILAMARA, P.S.- GHILAMARA, SUB-DIVISION- DHAKUAKHANA, IN THE DISTRICT OF LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 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 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD. (APDCL) NORTH LAKHIMPUR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. 4:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (SDE) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD. (APDCL) GHILAMARA IN THE DISTRICT OF LAKHIMPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR DEBA SARMAH, RAKESH CHETRY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, APDCL Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA O R D E R 26.05.2026 Heard Mr. D. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Das, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL and Mr. HK Hazarika, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the grievance that though he possesses a house over a plot of land, which belongs to him and which has been mutated by way of inheritance in his name along with his brother, his application for permanent electricity connection has not been accepted by the APDCL for the reason that one complaint has been filed by one Sri Mintu Gogoi on 14.11.202 (ineligible). It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a daily wage earner and the petitioner along with his family is residing over a plot of land, owned and possessed by them admeasuring 3 Kathas and 14.5 Lechas, covered by Patta No.540 (N) and Dag No.1826 (N) at ½ Khanda revenue village, Mouza- Gohain, Sub-Division- Dhakuakhana in the district of Lakhimpur. The aforesaid land along with other plot of land measuring at 3 Kathas 14.5 Lechas, covered by Patta No.542 and Dag No.168 is jointly owned by the petitioner along with his brother Sri Hiren Gogoi. It is contended by the petitioner that in the 1st week of September, 2025, the petitioner has approached the office of the respondent No.4 to provide electricity connection as he was willing to deposit the requisite fee for Page No.# 3/6 security and installation for the meter in his house. However, the respondent authorities did not take any action to provide such connection. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition, wherein this Court vide its order dated 10.12.2025, observed that there will be no bar for the respondent authorities to consider to give temporary electricity connection to the petitioner in accordance with law. 3. In view of the aforesaid order dated 10.12.2025, the respondent APDCL authorities had given a temporary connection to the petitioner after verification of the required documents. The petitioner’s case is that since the petitioner is looking for a permanent connection and accordingly, he had already applied for the permanent connection by depositing the necessary fees, which has already been received by the APDCL authorities, the petitioner had stopped paying the electricity bill for the temporary connection and in view of the aforesaid, his temporary connection has been disconnected by the APDCL authority. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner has been denied of a permanent electricity connection only due to the aforesaid complaint filed by one Sri Mintu Gogoi before the Chief Engineer, APDCL. It is contended that in the aforesaid complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner along with his brother Sri Hiren Gogoi had taken a house on rent in the plot of land belonging to Sri Mintu Gogoi and by obtaining a permanent electricity connection, he was trying to illegally occupy the land of the complainant, i.e. Sri Mintu Gogoi. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid complaint has been filed by Sri Mintu Gogoi with some ulterior motive as Page No.# 4/6 whatever has been stated in the complaint is totally incorrect and wrong, which could be found from the land documents possessed by the petitioner. In this connection, he has referred to the land documents, i.e. Jamabandi for surveyed village of Ghilamara ½ Khanda, Sub-Division- Dhakuakhana, Circle- Subansiri, Mauza-Gohain, Lot No.3, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that under Patta No.540, Dag No.1826, a total land admeasuring 3 Kathas and 14.5 Lechas is mutated against the name of the petitioner along with his brother, namely, Sri Hiren Gogoi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner owns and possesses the aforesaid plot of land and he has a structure, wherein he has been staying for many years, there is no ground for rejection of his application for connection of electricity by the APDCL. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is some personal issues of enmity with the complainant i.e. Sri Mintu Gogoi with the petitioner and his brother. However, he submits that there is no land dispute in the instant case as there is no case pending between the petitioner with the aforesaid Sri Mintu Gogoi in any of the Courts. In this connection, he has referred to Form-50, which is available at page No.70 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, which clearly shows that no civil suit/litigation is pending, involving the petitioner. 7. Mr. B. Das, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL submits that APDCL does not have any problem in giving electricity connection to the petitioner. However, only due to the complaint received by it about the title of the land possessed by the petitioner, the same was not given. He submits that during the pendency of the matter, the APDCL authorities have conducted a spot verification and a report has been prepared by Page No.# 5/6 them. Learned counsel appearing for APDCL has produced the aforesaid report dated 25.05.2026, which is kept on record marking ‘X’. He submits that as per the report, though the ownership of the land could not be ascertained by the APDCL authorities, they could see two structures standing in the plot of land including the petitioner’s bamboo house. He has also submitted that permanent electricity connection has been given to one Sri Satyanath Gogoi, the father of the complainant, Sri Mintu Gogoi. He submits that though spot verification has been made, the same is made only on the basis of the documents submitted for the connection as well as from visual observations. 8. This Court has gone through the materials brought before this Court by way of the writ petition, affidavit-in-opposition and the reply thereof. 9. It is seen that the petitioner is the joint owner of a plot of land as mentioned above, wherein the bamboo house of the petitioner is located. It is also seen from the records that though a dispute has been raised by the complainant, Sri Mintu Gogoi before the APDCL, there is no material before this court to come to any conclusion that there is any dispute in the title and ownership of the land of the petitioner. The Form-50 certificates issued by the concerned authority, have also been perused by this Court. Though the APDCL has taken a stand in their affidavit that because of the complaint filed by the aforesaid Sri Mintu Gogoi, the title and ownership could not be ascertained by the APDCL and the electricity connection could not be given to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that since sufficient materials are available before this Court to show that the petitioner is the owner and he possesses the aforesaid land wherein his bamboo house is located, there should not be any ground for the Page No.# 6/6 APDCL to reject the electricity connection, if the petitioner fulfils all other criteria for such connection. 10. 10. In view of the aforesaid observations, it is directed that the application of the petitioner for connection of electricity, which has been filed by the petitioner on 15.11.2025 should be considered by the APDCL within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and accordingly, provide the necessary connection to the petitioner in terms of AERC Electricity Supply Code, 2017, on payment of required fees and other payments that are applicable for such connection. 11. With the above observations and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant