No one can be permitted to block electricity supply to neighbors: The High Court of Uttarakhand
Electricity is becoming a very important part of human life, especially now in the age of technology. Therefore no person has the right to prevent another from having access to electricity. This was held in the judgement passed by a single member bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand consisting of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari in the case of Chandan Singh v State of Uttarakhand [Writ Petition (M/S) No. 350 of 2021] on 11th June 2021. Chandan Singh, the petitioner sought relief from the High Court due to Uttarakhand Power Corporation stopping the electricity connection to his tube-well. Uttarakhand High Court explained they were not in a position to give in to the petitioner’s requests due to objections from the petitioner’s neighbor and aunt who is respondent no: 4 in this case. There exists property and familial disputes between the petitioner and respondent no: 4 and the latter objected to restoring electricity to the petitioner’s tube-well on grounds that the any electricity line would have to pass through her property and would damage her fruit bearing jamun trees. The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that using insulated wire would prevent any damage to respondent’s no: 4’s trees and alternatively that any branches touching the wires could be lopped without affecting the trees. The Court found that the respondents did not have the right to deny electricity to the petitioner’s tube well and the writ petition therefore allowed. Additionally the Joint-magistrate was instructed to ensure that no disturbance is caused while restoring the electricity connection.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ON THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ PetitionNo. 3521 Chandan Singh .....Petitioner By Mr. Bharat Singh Advocate) BETWEEN: State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents By Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand respondent no. 1 Mr. N.S. Pundir Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. S.K. Mandal Advocate for respondent no. 4) JUDGMENT Respondent no. 4 is aunt of the petitioner. According to petitioner due to the objection raised by respondent no. 4 Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. is not in a position to restore the electricity connection to petitioner’s tube well. By means of this writ petition petitioner has sought the following relief: “(i) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 & 3 to restore the electricity connection of tube well of the petitioner and supply the electricity to him forthwith for operating the Tube well of the petitioner for irrigation of his fields.” Admittedly dispute is pending between petitioner and respondent no. 4 regarding family property. Respondent no. 4 had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 1102 of 2020 for restoring 2 electricity connection to her tube well. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.09.2020. Relevant extract of the said order is reproduced below: learned counsel “Mr. Rajveer Singh for the petitioner submits that petitioner will give an undertaking in writing before the concerned Executive Engineer Electricity Division that she will have no objection if power supply to the Tube Well of Mr. Chandan Singh S o Ved Singh is restored from the same transformer from which petitioner is supplied electricity. Mr. N.S. Pundir Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. assures the Court that subject to petitioner giving such undertaking electricity connection of the petitioner would be restored as early as possible but not later than two weeks from today. He further assures the Court that power supply would also be restored to Mr. Chandan Singh S o Ved Singh within the same time from the same feeder provided he also gives an undertaking that he will not object against restoration of petitioner’s electricity connection. Petitioner is directed to furnish in writing the aforesaid undertaking within a week. Mr. Chandan Singh S o Ved Singh shall also furnish in writing the aforesaid undertaking within a week. The concerned Executive Engineer Electricity Division shall inform in writing to Mr. Chandan Singh S o Ved Singh about this order within three days from today. With the aforesaid observation writ petition is disposed of.” A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 28.09.2020 reveals that counsel appearing respondent no. 4 petitioner in Writ PetitionNo. 1102 of 2020 had assured the Court that his client will give an undertaking in writing before the Executive Engineer concerned that she will have no objection if power supply to the tube well of Chandan Singh is restored from the same transformer through which she is supplied electricity. 3 Pursuant to the order passed in Writ M S) No. 1102 of 2020 electricity connection to respondent no. 4 has been restored in view of undertaking given by her in terms of order of this Court. Mr. N.S. Pundir learned counsel respondent nos. 2 & 3 has informed the Court that his client had installed a electricity pole adjacent to the public path for restoring electricity connection to petitioner’s tube well however respondent no. 4 had damaged the electricity pole by saying that the electricity line would damage her fruit bearing trees jamun trees). He further submits that in this regard an F.I.R. has been lodged against respondent no. 4 for causing damage to the property of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. He further submits that the Joint Magistrate Roorkee vide order dated 02.03.2021 has permitted Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division Ramnagar Roorkee to lop the branches of the trees which may touch the line but despite the said order respondent no. 4 is not permitting restoration of electricity connection tube well of the course of arguments on 19.05.2021 petitioner’s counsel had submitted that he has no objection if insulated wire is used for restoring petitioner’s electricity connection provided respondent no. 4 agrees to bear 50% of the cost of such insulated wires which are more expensive. On 21.05.2021 learned counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. had apprised 4 the Court that cost of insulated wire for restoring electricity connection to the petitioner would be 62 518 . Mr. S.K. Mandal learned counsel appearing for respondent no 4 had sought time to seek instructions from his client as to whether she is willing to bear 50% of the cost of insulated wire. He has apprised the Court that his client is not willing to contribute 50% of the cost of insulated wire used in restoring electricity connection of the petitioner. 10. Such conduct of respondent no.4 cannot be appreciated. Her electricity connection was restored in terms of order of this Court passed on 28.09.2020 and her counsel had assured the Court that respondent no. 4 will have no objection if power supply to petitioner’s tube well is restored from the same transformer from which respondent no. 4 would be supplied electricity. 11. Mr. N.S. Pundir learned counsel respondent nos. 2 & 3 has informed the Court that respondent no. 4 had given an undertaking before Executive Engineer in terms of order of this Court that she will have no objection in restoration of electricity connection of the petitioner. 12. In such view of the matter it is not now open to respondent no. 4 to raise objection against restoration of electricity connection of the petitioner. Even otherwise also electricity has become a necessity now a days and no one can be permitted to block electricity supply to his neighbours. 5 13. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division Ramnagar Roorkee is directed to restore electricity connection to the tube well of the petitioner as early as possible but not later than ten days from today. 14. The Joint Magistrate Roorkee or any officer authorized by her not below the rank of Tehsildar shall remain present on the spot along with adequate police force to ensure that no disturbance is caused while restoring electricity connection to the tube well of the petitioner. 