DELHI HIGH COURT AFFIRMS ELECTRICITY AS ESSENTIAL RIGHT AMID MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY DISPUTE

1. FACT OF THE CASE

A writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court seeking restoration of electricity supply to a residential flat in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The petitioner claimed that although he had purchased the property, it was registered in the name of the second respondent. Owing to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the electricity connection was disconnected upon the request of the registered owner, leaving the petitioner without access to this essential service.

2. ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT

The principal issue before the Court was whether electricity connection could be restored to the premises despite the ownership being disputed, and whether such restoration would prejudice the rights of the registered owner while civil proceedings concerning the property were still pending.

3. CONTENTION BY THE PETITIONER

The petitioner argued that disconnection of electricity was causing undue hardship as electricity is a basic necessity for dignified living. He submitted that despite applying for a fresh connection, the electricity distribution company had not acted on his request. The petitioner further undertook to clear all arrears relating to utilities such as water and gas and assured the Court that he would pay all future consumption charges on time.

4. CONTENTION BY THE RESPONDENTS

The registered owner, while not opposing the restoration of electricity, contended that the petitioner had defaulted in payment of other utility bills, resulting in outstanding dues. The electricity distribution company maintained that it could restore the supply only upon receipt of an application from the registered owner and subject to payment of any pending charges, as per its rules and regulations.

5. LAW AND CASE LAW DISCUSSION

The Court relied on the constitutional principle that access to electricity forms part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. In Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to shelter includes access to basic amenities like electricity and water. Similarly, in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. DVS Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 210, it was held that supply of electricity cannot be denied to an occupant merely on account of disputes regarding ownership, provided dues are paid. The Delhi High Court, in several earlier decisions, has also reiterated that ownership disputes cannot be a ground to deprive a resident of essential civic services. Thus, the law strikes a balance: while service providers may impose reasonable conditions such as clearance of dues and security deposits, access to electricity cannot be denied arbitrarily.

6. COURT OBSERVED

The Court observed that the present proceedings were limited to the restoration of electricity and not to determination of ownership rights, which were subject to separate civil proceedings. It noted that the registered owner had raised no objection to reconnection and that the petitioner had undertaken responsibility to clear dues and make regular payments. The Court also recognized the electricity distribution company’s right to insist on compliance with procedural requirements, including submission of an application by the registered owner and payment of dues.

7. FINAL DIRECTION

The Court directed the registered owner to make an application for restoration of electricity within two days. Upon such application, the electricity distribution company was ordered to restore the connection, subject to conditions: any pending dues must be cleared by the petitioner, all future bills must be paid regularly, and an additional security deposit of ₹10,000 was to be furnished. The company was also given liberty to disconnect the supply in case of non-compliance. Importantly, the Court clarified that these directions did not affect ownership rights or confer any special equities upon the petitioner.

DATE OF DECISION

08.09.2025

CASE NUMBER

W.P.(C) 13366/202