The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has ruled that electricity supply cannot be denied solely because ownership of a property is under dispute, strengthening access to power as part of the constitutional right to a dignified life under Article 21.
A division bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary made the observation while allowing a writ petition filed by Rae Bareli resident Rakesh Kumar Mishra, who had sought an electricity connection for his house. A civil suit concerning ownership of the property is pending before a court.
The electricity department had rejected Mishra’s application because he could not submit the required ownership documents. His counsel argued that Clause 4.4 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 allows an applicant to provide an indemnity form as an alternative document while seeking a new connection.
The court accepted that position and set aside the rejection order as illegal, according to the report by The Times of India. It held that an application cannot be rejected merely because a civil dispute over ownership is pending if the applicant is willing to furnish the prescribed indemnity bond.
The ruling separates the question of electricity supply from the question of final ownership. Utility authorities may require applicants to comply with applicable laws and procedures, but they cannot treat a pending property dispute as an automatic bar to a power connection when the supply code provides another route for documentation.
The court also linked electricity access to basic needs and human dignity. Its observation that access to power derives constitutional protection from Article 21 places the issue within a wider public-service framework rather than treating it only as a contractual matter between a consumer and a distribution agency.
For households living in properties affected by inheritance disputes, partition cases or other ownership litigation, the ruling could provide a legal basis to seek consideration of electricity applications through an indemnity bond. The judgment, however, does not remove the requirement to follow applicable electricity laws or guarantee approval in every case; the application must still be examined in accordance with the rules.
The High Court directed the executive engineer concerned to decide Mishra’s application within 10 days of receiving a certified copy of the order. If the application is approved, the electricity connection must be provided forthwith. The direction leaves the immediate administrative decision with the electricity department while making clear that the pending civil dispute alone cannot justify rejection.
