The right to electricity is part of a dignified life under Article 21, the Allahabad High Court has held, and a connection cannot be refused merely because a title dispute is pending in a civil court, once the applicant offers the prescribed indemnity form.
Lucknow: A Raebareli resident who was refused a fresh domestic electricity connection for want of proof of ownership has succeeded before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), which set aside the Executive Engineer’s order and directed that his application be decided afresh within 10 days [Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others].
Writ-C No. 9115 of 2026 was allowed on October 5, 2026 by a Division Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary. S.K. Tripathi and Neeraj Pandey appeared for the petitioner, Shrikant Tripathi for the private respondent, and Aprajita Bansal for the electricity authorities.
Electricity and a dignified life
On the constitutional footing, the Bench held:
“Thus, we hold that access to electricity constitutes an important element of a dignified life and derives constitutional protection principally through Article 21, read in light of the values of human dignity, shelter, health, education and livelihood, and reinforced by Article 14 and the Directive Principles of State Policy.”
The principle is not an unconditional right to free or unlimited electricity, the Court was careful to say. The entitlement stays subject to lawful charges, technical conditions, safety requirements and other legitimate regulatory requirements, and what the principle guards against is arbitrary, discriminatory or legally impermissible denial. Electricity authorities ordinarily inquire into occupation and compliance with statutory and technical requirements rather than adjudicate private title disputes, it added, noting that the Court has in many cases held that a person in lawful or actual occupation cannot ordinarily be denied electricity merely because of a dispute with the landlord.
A house in Kranti Puri, a suit and a refusal
The petitioner lives at a house in Kranti Puri, Jail Garden Road, Raebareli, and its title and ownership are disputed with a private respondent in Regular Suit No. 160 of 2021 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raebareli. He first sought a connection on the strength of a will deed, but withdrew that earlier writ petition after being told the will had been cancelled.
His next petition, Writ-C No. 3815 of 2026, was disposed of on June 8, 2026 with a direction to the Executive Engineer, Vidyut Vitran Khand-I, Raebareli, to decide his application within a week. The Executive Engineer rejected it by an order of July 28, 2026, holding that a connection can go only to a person who shows rights in the property through a registered sale deed, succession certificate or no-objection certificate, none of which the petitioner produced. The private respondent opposed the writ on the ground that the petitioner was not the owner and that no connection could be granted while the title suit was pending.
What Clause 4.4 of the Supply Code says
Clause 4.4 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 was the petitioner’s footing. Its clause 4.4(a)(i) lists, as proof of ownership or occupancy, a registered sale deed, partition deed, succession or heirship certificate, deed of last will, a valid power of attorney, latest rent receipt, a valid lease deed or an indemnity form in the format of Annexure 4.2, and adds that an order copy of the appropriate court must be enclosed where there is litigation over ownership. The Executive Engineer, the Bench found, had read only part of the clause.
Even a person who may not be the owner is entitled to a fresh connection if he is ready to pay outstanding dues and furnish the indemnity bond, the Court read the clause to mean. It referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1996) 2 SCC 549, which treated the right to shelter as an essential part of the right to life. On the facts, the Bench said that if the petitioner was ready and willing to submit the indemnity form, it saw no reason why the connection could have been denied, and held the impugned order illegal and arbitrary to that extent.
Ten days to decide afresh
The writ petition was allowed and the matter remitted to the Executive Engineer for a fresh order in accordance with law. The Court directed:
“In case the petitioner is ready and willing to adduce the indemnity form, the connection shall not be rejected merely on the ground of pendency of title disputes before a competent civil court.”
The application must be decided afresh within 10 days of a certified copy of the order being produced before the Executive Engineer, and if it is allowed, the connection is to be provided forthwith.
Ownership on one side, power on the other
The ruling separates the civil question of who owns a building from the administrative question of whether an occupant can get power. Distribution licensees cannot read only the ownership documents in the Supply Code and ignore the indemnity route, and a pending suit is not by itself a ground to refuse. The Court also kept the right within limits, leaving lawful charges and safety requirements intact, and the decision does not decide the title suit.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others [Writ-C No. 9115 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
Date of Order: October 5, 2026
Appearances: S.K. Tripathi and Neeraj Pandey for the petitioner; Shrikant Tripathi for the private respondent; Aprajita Bansal for the electricity authorities