Court: Occupier entitled to seek power connection under Electricity Act, 2003

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, September 12

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that an occupier of a premises was entitled to seek electricity connection under terms of the Electricity Act-2003.

‘Entitled to supply’

• The petitioner was denied connection on the ground that he was not the “lawful” occupier of the premises
• The word “lawful” specified in the Electricity Act, 1910, was dropped by Parliament in the Electricity Act, 2003
• Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj said a person in undisputed possession of premises was entitled to connection

Putting to rest the controversy over the issue, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj also made it clear that a person in undisputed possession of the premises, not being a rank trespasser, was entitled to the connection, despite a challenge regarding the nature of his occupation.

The judgment came in a case where connection was denied to the petitioner on the ground that he was not the “lawful” occupier of the premises.

Taking up the petition filed through counsel Gaurav Vir Singh Behl, Justice Bhardwaj also rapped Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) for incorporating a term not contained in the Act.

Taking note of the fact that “application and agreement form” contains terms “lawful owner” and “lawful occupier”, Justice Bhardwaj added a comparative reading of a provision in the Electricity Act, 1910, and the 2003 Act, however, showed there was a “conscious departure by the Parliament”.

The word “lawful” specified in the earlier Act was dropped by the Parliament in the latter. The deletion was required to be viewed as a conscious act of the Parliament and not just an omission.

Justice Bhardwaj added a perusal of the Act and the precedents showed that the statute only talked of a person to be the “owner of the property” or “an occupier of the premises”. The insertion of “lawful” would, as such, amount to violence on the PSPCL’s part. It incorporated a term not contained in the statute itself and insisted upon the word to be a part of statute, even though it stood deleted.

Justice Bhardwaj further added term “lawful” had not been defined under the 2003 Act, the regulations framed under it or by any other sale circular issued by the PSPCL. Consequently, “lawful” had to be seen in the context of the meaning ordinarily understood or assigned in the ordinary understanding of the general public.

“The legislature will not intend to promote breach of law. Besides, every term used in a statute inherently implies it to be lawful. Hence, the interpretation of ‘occupier’ will necessarily mean a possession where a person has been lawfully inducted in premises. The continuity of subsequent possession by statutory protection or pending judicial adjudication will not be sufficient to hold the possession to be unlawful under the Electricity Act, 2003, so as to deny the release of electricity connection in favour of such occupier, provided the application otherwise satisfies to the prescribed regulations,” Justice Bhardwaj added, while directing the respondents to release the connection within 30 days.