Can a pending family dispute over title keep a household without power? The Madhya Pradesh High Court says no: an occupier entitled to electricity connection under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be refused supply merely because title to the premises is in dispute.
Gwalior: Allowing a writ petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has directed the electricity distribution company to release a domestic connection within seven days to a woman who lives in a house where her mother disputes her share. The Court held that the right to electricity is part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution [Preeti Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].
The petition under Article 226 was decided by Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke in an order dated 24 September 2026.
Occupation, not title
According to the Court, an authority considering an application for a connection is not required to settle complicated questions of title, partition or inter se civil rights. It set Section 43 of the 2003 Act beside Section 12(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, which defined an occupier as a person in lawful occupation, and held that leaving out the word “lawful” was a conscious departure by Parliament and not an omission.
For support it turned to the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Fashion Proprietor Aswani Kumar Maity v. West Bengal Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (AIR 2009 Cal. 87) and a Gujarat High Court ruling of 2 August 2022 in Yogesh Lakhmanbhai Chovatiya v. PGVCL. Summing up, the Court said:
“…this Court finds that the petitioner has the right to claim electricity connection as an ‘Occupier’ under Section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003… no-one, in the modern days can survive without electricity, and therefore, the right to electricity is also a right to life and liberty in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Seven days, and a limit
The respondents must release the connection within seven days of receiving the order, for the premises where the petitioner is staying, provided she complies with the other norms. The Court was explicit that its observations go only to her right to have electricity for as long as she remains in possession. They do not decide the title dispute between her and her mother.
A connection given, then withdrawn
The petitioner claims a one-seventh share in a three-storey house in Lashkar, Gwalior, under a compromise recorded in civil proceedings under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to which her mother (respondent no. 5) was also a party. She lives there with her husband and children. She was given a temporary domestic connection on 20 August 2025 and paid the bills. After the mother complained that the connection had been obtained by suppressing facts, it was disconnected on 27 August 2025.
The petitioner’s fresh application of 29 August 2025 was not acted on, and her complaint before the Consumer Forum was dismissed on the ground that she was not treated as a consumer. She says her children, in Classes IX and X, could not study without power. The mother has separately started proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. A fresh representation made after an order of 21 April 2026 also produced no connection.
What each side argued
Advocate Arshad Ali M. Haque told the Court for the petitioner that Section 43 obliges the licensee to supply an owner or occupier who is willing to pay the charges under Sections 45 to 47. Government Advocate Shiraz Qureshi for the State and Advocate Prateek Kulshrestha for the distribution company submitted that no connection can be released until the petitioner establishes her right over the premises, since her mother had raised a dispute. Advocate Himanshi Pathak appeared for the mother.
Where title disputes belong
Utilities often refuse or cut supply when family members or co-owners complain about possession. This order says the licensee’s duty under Section 43 turns on occupation, since the 2003 Act dropped the 1910 Act’s requirement of lawful occupation, and that the licensee is not a forum for title disputes. Questions of ownership stay with the civil court. Supply of a basic utility to the person actually living in the house does not wait for them.
Case Title: Preeti Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [Writ Petition No. 17709 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior)
Date of Order: September 24, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Arshad Ali M. Haque for the petitioner; Government Advocate Shiraz Qureshi for the State; Advocate Prateek Kulshrestha for respondents no. 2 and 3; Advocate Himanshi Pathak for respondent no. 5