Introduction:

In a socially significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court’s circuit bench at Port Blair upheld the principle that access to electricity—a basic and essential amenity—cannot be denied to individuals merely on the ground that they lack documentary proof of ownership or lawful occupancy over the land they inhabit. This decision was delivered in the case of Krishnawathi v. Union of India & Others, WPA/216/2025, by Justice Krishna Rao, who was hearing the matter at the Port Blair bench. The case revolved around a writ petition filed by the petitioner Krishnawathi, a resident living on government revenue land without electricity. Her plea challenged the rejection of her electricity connection application by the Assistant Engineer-II (HQ), Electricity Department, solely on the grounds of non-compliance with Clause 5.30 of the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (JERC) Regulation, 2018. The clause mandates submission of ownership or occupancy-related documents for granting electricity connections. However, the Court found that such documentary requirements could not be rigidly applied to deprive a citizen of a life-sustaining utility like electricity. The judgment sets an important precedent by harmonizing statutory regulation with constitutional values, primarily the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

Represented by her counsel, the petitioner Krishnawathi contended that she had submitted all documents available to her when she applied for an electricity connection on 24.06.2024. She maintained that she had been residing on the said government revenue land for an extended period and had constructed a house therein. However, despite continuous residence, she had been denied access to electricity, severely affecting her quality of life. The petitioner argued that the demand for documents under Clause 5.30 of the JERC Regulation, 2018, was impractical and exclusionary for those in her position—individuals who may not possess formal title or sanctioned occupancy documents but nonetheless are legitimate residents of the premises. She emphasized that access to electricity is integral to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and that withholding electricity on technicalities amounted to a violation of her fundamental rights. The petitioner also contended that a similar matter had been previously addressed by the Calcutta High Court itself in WPA/213/2025, where it was held that Clause 5.30 must not be interpreted in a manner that obstructs essential services to occupants.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The Electricity Department, represented by its counsel Mr. S.C. Mishra, relied heavily on Clause 5.30 of the JERC Regulation, 2018, and the Andaman and Nicobar Administration Circular dated 19.10.2023. The Department contended that these provisions clearly mandate that any applicant for a new electricity connection must submit specific documents proving ownership or lawful occupancy. Mr. Mishra argued that the Assistant Engineer-II (HQ) had no discretion but to act in accordance with the regulation, and the petitioner’s failure to provide the required documents automatically rendered her ineligible. The respondent further stated that while the Department sympathized with individuals residing on encroached lands, its actions were bound by rules framed to ensure orderly and legal service delivery. Any deviation from the regulation, they claimed, would open floodgates for unauthorized use and regularisation of encroachments, undermining land administration and statutory compliance.

Court’s Judgment and Findings:

Justice Krishna Rao, in a robust and empathetic judgment, held that the refusal to grant electricity connection to the petitioner solely on the basis of Clause 5.30 of the JERC Regulation, 2018, was arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The Court noted that the petitioner was an admitted occupant of the premises, and that her application had been rejected not on any factual dispute over her residence but due to lack of title or occupancy documents. The Court acknowledged the reality that many residents, especially those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, often reside on government lands for long periods without formal ownership due to administrative lapses or socio-economic constraints. Denying them essential services like electricity, the Court said, would violate their right to life and dignity under Article 21.

Quoting from the earlier decision in WPA/213/2025, the Court reaffirmed that Clause 5.30 must be interpreted contextually and not be used as a tool to deny electricity to vulnerable occupants. It emphasized that regulatory frameworks must align with constitutional mandates. “The authority has made an attempt by notifying the rule only to prevent the illegal occupier from grant of electricity,” the Court observed, strongly criticizing the manner in which the provision had been enforced. Justice Rao held that Clause 5.30, while detailing procedural requirements, cannot override the broader constitutional responsibility of the State to ensure basic infrastructure for all, including electricity, which is no longer a luxury but a necessity.

The Court also took judicial notice of the petitioner’s efforts—her application dated 24.06.2024 and her submission of available documents—and noted that the Assistant Engineer’s impugned order failed to appreciate the human rights dimension of the issue. The Court directed that the Electricity Department must provide a connection to the petitioner within four weeks, subject only to compliance with all reasonable technical formalities, but not dependent on the ownership or occupancy documents stipulated in Clause 5.30.

Justice Rao’s judgment balances the letter of regulatory law with the spirit of constitutional values. It recognizes that a rigid interpretation of service regulations can sometimes operate unjustly against those who already live at the margins. By setting aside the impugned order and directing restoration of the petitioner’s access to electricity, the Court has reaffirmed the role of judiciary as a protector of fundamental rights, especially for the underprivileged.