Electricity Part Of The Right To Life: Punjab And Haryana High Court

The right to life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution has recently been reaffirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The case of tenant-shopkeeper Om Parkash, whose landlord, Balkar Singh, cut off his electrical supply, was being heard by Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul's single bench. The respondent landlord cut off the supply, claiming that the lease between them had already expired and that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant.

A suit that the landlord had brought against the petitioner for possession of the suit property and the recovery of mesne profits also involved the tenancy of the aforementioned premises.

Electricity is part of the right to life

"We order the authorities to restore the energy connection," the Court said.

"The importance of electricity as a basic necessity and a fundamental component of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution cannot be overstated. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied access to electricity as long as he owns the property.

Notably, the petitioner had previously requested that the electricity connection in his shop be restored by contacting the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar. His request, nevertheless, was rejected. He filed the current appeal after his previous one was denied by Additional District Judge Yamuna Nagar.

Petitioner contentions

The petitioner contended that since he owned the land in question and electricity was a fundamental amenity, he could not be denied access to it. He also said that the respondent had severed the electricity connection to get him to leave the suit property.

Respondent contentions

However, the respondent contended that the petitioner's lease was still in effect under the terms of the rental agreement and that he was not entitled to keep using the property. He argued that the petitioner, who was an unauthorized occupant, had no right to ask for the restoration of the power connection because the respondent had already terminated the tenancy through a legal notice.

High court observation

The High Court observed that even if the respondent had filed a lawsuit seeking control of his property, the petitioner could not be cut off from energy until the case was finally decided. The Court declared:

The question of whether the petitioner is an illegal occupant of the suit property or not, or whether he is subject to eviction or not, would be a matter of trial. Admittedly, the respondent has filed a suit for possession of the suit property as well as recovery of mesne profits, which is still pending adjudication. The petitioner is the owner of the subject property, and a court of competent jurisdiction has not yet ordered his eviction.

As a result, the Court approved the revision petition and mandated the restoration of power. "The electrical connection at the relevant property will be restored until the conclusion of the suit he filed, subject to the petitioner paying any appropriate expenses. It is stated unequivocally that the petitioner must continue to make monthly payments for the electricity "It said.