The Allahabad High Court has directed the North Eastern Railway to provide an electricity connection within 30 days to the son of a temple Mahant living in a Railway Colony at Ballia, holding that electricity is an indispensable part of the right to life under Article 21 and that he had been forced to live without it for more than a decade.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has allowed a writ petition against the refusal of the North Eastern Railway to grant an electricity connection to a person living in a temple within the Railway Colony at Ballia, quashing the refusal orders and directing the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur to provide a connection within 30 days unless there is a statutory impediment [Fanindra Das v. The General Manager and Another].
A Division Bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran delivered the judgment on September 28, 2026, in Writ-C No. 51747 of 2012, after reserving it on July 23, 2026. The judgment was authored by Justice Saran.
The case
The petitioner’s late father was the Mahant of a temple in the Railway Colony at Ballia. According to the petitioner, the Railway had provided an electricity connection to the Mahant in his lifetime, but after his death it was denied to the petitioner because of a dispute between him and his brother. The order of May 9, 2012 recorded that houses stand on private land appurtenant to the temple, that a connection was given to the Mahant in 1978 under directions of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh and is still continuing and used by the petitioner’s brother, and that a Railway Board letter of September 30, 1996 bars the Railway from providing electricity connections on private land. It concluded that no connection could be given to the petitioner.
The petitioner sought to quash the orders of July 26, 2011 and May 9, 2012, and a direction to the Railway to transfer the existing connection in his name, or to restore supply to him through a sub-meter.
What the parties argued
Advocate Pramod Kumar, for the petitioner, submitted that a connection had been in use since 1978, that the only reason for denying it was the dispute between the two brothers, and that the reasoning in the order of May 9, 2012 did not justify depriving him of supply. Standing Counsel Rakesh Kumar Mishra, for the North Eastern Railway, repeated the stand in that order and relied on a Railway Board order of September 30, 1986, which provides that a connection may be given to private parties or government departments connected with railway working who are also authorised occupants of Railway land. No counter affidavit was filed for the fourth respondent, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Gorakhpur, and nobody appeared for it.
The Court’s reasoning
The Bench noted that the Railway had refused a connection for certain reasons, and that since the place where the petitioner sought a connection lies in the midst of Railway property, it could fairly be presumed that a connection could only be granted by the Railway. It then held that the right to life under Article 21 is not limited to the basic animal needs of a person. In an organised society, it said, the right to live as a human being is not possible without adequate living space, a safe and decent structure, clean surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., which held that the right to shelter includes electricity among the facilities necessary to live and develop as a human being. It also relied on Dilip (Dead) v. Satish, where the Supreme Court held that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived, and that the supply authority need only examine whether the applicant occupies the premises. It noted that a coordinate Bench of the High Court, in Preeti Sharma v. State of U.P., had held that access to an electricity connection is a fundamental right under Article 21 and had set aside an order refusing it.
The Court held that it was the duty of the respondents to ensure that the petitioner has access to a basic human need, and that in modern times electricity is indispensable to live. It said the connection ought to have been granted by the Railway unless the law disentitled the petitioner to it. It described as a matter of concern that the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner lives at the place, yet denied him electricity and thereby forced him to live without it for more than a decade.
The order
The writ petition was allowed. The orders of July 26, 2011 and May 9, 2012, passed by the third and first respondents, were quashed. The General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur was directed to provide an electricity connection to the petitioner within 30 days from the date a certified copy of the order is presented, unless there is a statutory impediment. There was no order as to costs.
Why it matters
The judgment applies the settled Article 21 reasoning on electricity to an occupant of premises that lie inside Railway property, where only the Railway can supply power. It treats the fact of occupation, which the Railway did not dispute, as the key question, and does not accept a dispute among family members over an earlier connection as a reason to leave the petitioner without supply.
The direction is qualified by the words “unless there is a statutory impediment”, and the Court did not decide the dispute between the brothers over the existing connection, or the title to the temple land. The petitioner’s demand for a transfer of the old connection was not granted. The Court directed a connection to the petitioner.
Case Title: Fanindra Das v. The General Manager and Another [Writ-C No. 51747 of 2012]
Bench: Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran, Allahabad High Court
Date of Judgment: September 28, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Pramod Kumar appeared for the petitioner, and Standing Counsel Rakesh Kumar Mishra appeared for the North Eastern Railway. No one appeared for Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited.