SRI CHANDU KHAMARU versus SMT. NAYAN MALIK & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 112 · Decided: 02-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 112 
SRI CHANDU KHAMARU 
v. 
SMT. NAYAN MALIK & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7572 of 2011) 
SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003: 
c 
s. 67(2) rlw ss. 42(1) and 43(1) - Duty of distribution 
licensee to supply electricity on request - Supply of electricity 
to the house of appellant disconnected on the ground that the 
passage through which the electric line was taken belonged 
to respondents - Claim of respondents disputed by the 
0 
appellant -
Held: The appellant has a statutory right to apply 
for and obtain supply of electricity from the distribution 
licensee and the latter has a corresponding statutory 
obligation to supply electricity to the appellant - Distribution 
licensee directed to find out an a/cernate way to supply 
E 
electricity to the house of appellant; otherwise, to follow the 
provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 67 for carrying out the work for 
supply of electricity to the house of the appellant. 
The appellant, the owner of a house situated on Dag 
No. 408, after unsuccessfully approaching the distribution 
F 
licensee for supply of electricity to his house, filed a writ 
petition before the High Court. In compliance of the 
directions in the writ petition the distribution licensee 
gave an electric connection and started supplying 
electricity to the house of the appellant. Respondent nos. 
G 1 to 3, claiming themselves to be the owners of the 
houses situated on Dag nos. 406, 407 and 409, filed a writ 
petition stating that the distribution licensee had provided 
electricity to the house of the appellant by an el,ectric line 
taken through a passage located on Dag nos .. 406, 407 
H 
112 
CHANDU KHAMARU v. NAVAN MALIK & ORS. 
113 
and 409 which belonged to them and not to the appellant; A 
and prayed for a writ prohibiting the distribution licensee 
to give electric connection to the appellant through the 
passage situated on their land. The writ petition was 
allowed; and the appeal filed by the appellant was 
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court B 
holding that Civil Suit No. 83 of 2004 between the parties 
in respect of the passage in question was pending 
between the parties and until the said dispute was 
resolved, the distribution licensee could not supply 
electricity to the house of the appellant. 
C 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 42 and 
sub-s. (1) of s. 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 make it amply 
clear that a distribution licensee has a statutory duty to D 
supply electricity to an owner or occupier of any premises 
located in the area of supply of electricity of the 
distribution licensee, if such owner or occupier of the 
premises applies for it, and correspondingly every owner 
or occupier of any premises has a statutory right to apply E 
for and obtain such electric supply from the distribution 
licensee. The Act has also made provisions to enable the 
distribution licensee to carry out works for the purpose 
of supplying electricity to the owners or the occupiers of 
premises in his area of supply. [s.67] [para 7-8] [117-8-
F 
E] 
1.2. In the instant case, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 do not 
object to the supply of electricity by the distribution 
licensee to the appellant as it will be clear from the G 
averments made in writ petition No.345 of 2005 filed by 
them before the High Court but they object to the line for 
supply of electricity being drawn through the passage in 
Dag Nos. 406, 407 and 409 which they claim to be theirs. 
The further grievance of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 is that 
1-1 
114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 
A they were not made parties in the earlier Writ Petition 
No.18220 of 2004 filed by the appellant in which the High 
Court directed the distribution licensee to effect supply 
of electricity to the house of the appellant. The case of 
the appellant, on the other hand, is that this passage is 
B not a private passage of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 but is a 
common passage and, therefore, an electric line can be 
dr~wn through this common passage. This dispute will 
have to be resolved in Civil Suit No.83 of 2004 pending 
in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), or in any 
C other suit, but pending resolution of this dispute between 
the parties, the appellant cannot be denied supply of 
electricity to his house. [para 10) [120-G-H; 121-A-C] 
. 
.... 
1.3. The order of the Single Judge as well as the 
impugned order of the D

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.