Blog

Case Title: SHRI M R VIJAYA KUMAR Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EI) & ORS.

Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 13571 OF 2024

Dated on: 21^st MAY, 2024

Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

Facts:

The petitioner, Shri M R Vijaya Kumar, residing at Adichunchanagiri Road, Mysuru, filed a writ petition seeking the restoration of electricity supply to his premises at Malalwadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. The petitioner’s electricity supply was disconnected by the Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited (CESCOM) due to the petitioner’s failure to obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from other co-owners of the property. Despite the petitioner’s requests for restoration of power and assurance to furnish the necessary NOC, CESCOM did not consider the petitioner’s representations. The court, after hearing the arguments, directed CESCOM to restore the power supply immediately, with the condition that the petitioner must furnish the NOC from other co-owners within 15 days. Failure to comply would allow CESCOM to take further action.

Issues framed by Court:

1. Whether the disconnection of power supply by CESCOM was justified solely due to the petitioner’s failure to obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from other co-owners of the property?
2. Whether the petitioner’s requests for restoration of power supply and assurance to furnish the necessary NOC were duly considered by CESCOM?
3. Whether CESCOM’s action of disconnecting the power supply without considering the petitioner’s representations was lawful?
4. Whether CESCOM is obligated to restore the electricity supply to the petitioner’s premises bearing No. 32/1, Malalwadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, in light of the petitioner’s regular payment of consumption charges?

Legal Provision:

Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The power of HC’s to issue writs for the enforcement of rights under Part III of the Constitution and other purposes.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The petitioner contended that CESCOM unjustly disconnected the electricity supply to the petitioner’s premises solely due to the petitioner’s failure to obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from other co-owners of the property. The petitioner argued that despite their requests for restoration of power supply and assurance to furnish the necessary NOC, CESCOM did not consider their representations. However, the petitioner emphasized their regular payment of consumption charges as evidence of their compliance with CESCOM’s requirements. Consequently, the petitioner sought the immediate restoration of electricity supply to their premises, asserting CESCOM’s lack of lawful grounds for the disconnection.

Contentions of the Respondents:

The respondent contended that the disconnection of power supply was justified due to the petitioner’s failure to obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the other co-owners of the property, as requested by CESCOM. They argued that CESCOM had communicated this requirement to the petitioner and had warned of necessary action in case of non-compliance. Despite the petitioner’s assurances to furnish the NOC, CESCOM asserted that the petitioner did not comply within the stipulated time frame. Hence, CESCOM maintained that their action of disconnecting the power supply was lawful and warranted given the circumstances.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The Court analyzed that the petitioner’s right to electricity is a basic amenity which was unduly hindered by CESCOM’s refusal to restore the supply despite the petitioner’s assurances and efforts to obtain the required NOC. Further, the Court emphasized the necessity of balancing procedural requirements with the provision of essential services. However, it concluded that CESCOM’s insistence on the NOC, without considering the petitioner’s representations and assurances, was unjust. Consequently, the Hon’ble Court directed the respondents to restore the electricity supply to the petitioner’s premises immediately, stipulating that the petitioner must provide the NOC from the co-owners within 15 days. It further stated that, if the petitioner fails to comply, CESCOM would be entitled to take appropriate action, thereby ensuring procedural compliance while safeguarding the petitioner’s access to electricity.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta