APHC010145732026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3504]

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 8103/2026

Between:

1. KADAGALA SRINIVAS RAO, S/O LATE APPALA RAMULU, AGED

ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O 1 -95, MAIN ROAD, PARAMPETA,

SRIKAKULAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 532122

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI

AMARAVATI, A.P. - 522238.

2. EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A P LTD APEPDCL,

REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE

OFFICE, P AND T COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM

DISTRICT, A.P. - 530013.

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, OPERATION DIVISION,

ANDHRA PRADESH EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY

OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED (APEPDCL), VIZIANAGARAM

DISTRICT - 535002.

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION SECTION, ANDHRA

PRADESH EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF

ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED (APEPDCL), VIZIANAGARAM RURAL,

VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT - 535002.

5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION SECTION,

ANDHRA PRADESH EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY

OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED (APEPDCL), RAJAM,

VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT-532127.

6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OPERATION SECTION, ANDHRA

2

PRADESH EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF

ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED (APEPDCL), 33/11 KV SUB -STATION,

REGIDI AMADALAVAIASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT -

532122.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

pleased topleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the

nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents,

particularly Respondent No.6, in rejecting the Petitioner's application dated

20.09.2025 bearing Registration No. NSCREG03556196 for grant of new

electricity service connection without assigning any reasons, despite the

Petitioner having complied with all the statutory mandates, as illegal, arbitrary,

unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and

the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Rules, besides being

violative of Articles 14, 19(1 )(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and

consequently direct the Respondents to issue a new electricity service

connection to the Petitioner herein

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. YAMINI SAHU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR ENERGY

2. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

RESERVED ON : 08.05.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 22.06.2026

UPLOADED ON : 22.06.2026

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 8103/2026

ORDER:

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India is filed to declare the action of the respondents, particularly

respondent No.6, in permanently rejecting the petitioner’s application

dated 20.09.2025 bearing Registration No.NSCREG0355196 for grant of

new electricity service connection without assigning any reasons,

despite the petitioner having complied with all the statutory provisions of

the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory

Commission Rules, besides being violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and

21 of the Constitution of India.

Brief facts of the case:

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner and

possessor of the property bearing D.No.1-95 situated at Main Road,

Parampeta Village, Regidi Amadalavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram

District, wherein, he intended to establish small flour mill to earn

livelihood and, in furtherance of the same, obtained requisite No-

Objection Certificate from Panchayat Secretary, Parampeta Village,

Regidi Amadalavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Subsequently,

the petitioner made application bearing Registr ation

4

No.NSCREG03556196 dated 20.09.2025 by paying the requisite fee for

the grant of Category-II electricity service connection to the 6

th

respondent Corporation.

3. It is further case of the petitioner that on 10.10.2025, the officials of

the 6

th

respondent, along with the village linemen, had brought the

service connection meter to premises of the petitioner for the purpose of

affecting the electricity connection, however, the said installation of

meter was stopped by the 6

th

respondent personnel midway due to some

local interference. Further, the petitioner has approached the office of

the 6

th

respondent again and again to enquire about the installation, but

there was no action taken by the respondent authorities and on the other

hand, his application status was shown as “Permanently Rejected” on

the online portal without providing any reasons. Thereafter, the

petitioner submitted representation dated 20.02.2026 to the respondent

Authorities by mentioning all the facts and requested them to furnish the

reasons for the permanent rejection of the application dated 20.09.2025

to reconsider the same and grant Category-II service Connection, but no

action has been taken by the respondents so far. Thus, challenging the

action of the respondents Corporation authorities, the petitioner

instituted the instant lis under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

before this Court.

5

4. Heard Ms. Yamini Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Ms. K. Aishwarya Chowdary, learned Junior Standing Counsel

representing Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent Corporation. Perused the material available on record.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the rejection of

the application by the respondent Authorities has affected the day to day

activities of the petitioner’s flour mill, for which, the petitioner is

essentially depended on electricity supply and in absence of the same,

the petitioner was deprived from carrying out the said occupation, which

directly effects on his livelihood thereby leading to violation of Articles

19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that under Clause 5.1 of

the General Terms and Conditions of the Supply (GTCS) r/w. Section 43

of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory

Commission (Licensees’ Standards of Performance) Regulation, 2004

(in short ‘APERC’), the distribution licensee is under statutory obligation

to provide electricity supply to the owner or occupier of any premises

within the time frame stipulated therein., on an application being made in

the prescribed manner.

6

7. She submitted that the petitioner has made requisite application

with all the necessary requirements, but despite the same the

respondent authorities had failed to perform their statutory obligation.

8. Further, she asserted that as per APERC Consumer Rights

Statement governing the procedure for providing new electricity

connection, an applicant is entitled to be informed the reasons for any

rejection, to be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, to prefer an

appeal and granted an opportunity to rectify any deficiencies at all.

9. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that in the

present case, the respondent authorities had failed to adhere to the said

mandate and violated the principles of natural justice as no prior notice

nor an opportunity of hearing before rejecting the application of the

petitioner, despite having approached the respondent Authorities on

several occasions. Therefore, she urged that the rejection of the

petitioner’s application without assigning any reasons renders the

impugned action of the respondent Corporation as non-speaking order.

11. To substantiate her arguments, the learned counsel placed

reliance on the judgments of Dilip (Dead) through LRs v. Satish &

Ors., K.C Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Kranti

Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan.

7

Arguments on behalf of the respondent Corporation:

12. On the other hand, the 2

nd

respondent Corporation has not filed

counter affidavit in spite of granting reasonable opportunity. Anyhow, the

learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submitted

that the petitioner had applied for new service connection vide

application dated 20.09.2025 bearing Registration

No.NSCREG03556196, the 2

nd

respondent Corporation personnel

approached the subject premises of the petitioner and found that there

was already an existing electricity connection bearing

No.133320N142000140, issued originally on 17.01.2019, in the name of

Smt. K. Madhura Meenakshi W/o. Kadagala Srinivas Rao.

13. She further submitted that the said service connection was

disconnected due to non-payment of C.C. charges. She further stated

that despite several phone calls made to the petitioner, no amount has

been paid by him, which resulted in non extension of the electricity

connection by the 2

nd

respondent Corporation authorities.

14. Learned counsel further stated that, if the petitioner pays the

requisite amounts, the 2

nd

respondent Corporation authorities, would

provide the electricity service connection to the petitioner, subject to the

fulfilment of statutory requirements.

8

15. At that juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference

to the Addl. Affidavit filed along with material papers in I.A. No.2 of 2026

in W.P. No.2103 of 2026, vehemently contended that the alleged

electricity connection bearing No.133320N142000140 stands in the

name of Smt.K.Madhura Meenakshi and not in the name of the

petitioner. She submitted that on transfer request made by the

petitioner’s wife Smt.K.Madhura Meenakshi, the 6

th

respondent Office

vide Notice Rc.No.201/2024 dated 12.07.2024 had removed the said

connection by giving specific assurance that they would provide

electricity service connection, but the 2

nd

respondent Corporation neither

restored nor reinstalled the electricity connection in her favour till today.

16. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner’s wife lastly

paid electricity charges on 26.07.2024 and asserted that since there is

no electricity connection from 12.07.2024 onwards, the imposition of

charges on the disconnected service connection itself is baseless and

fictitious. She also raised that the very action of the 2

nd

respondent

Corporation authorities in not providing electricity service connection in

spite of the petitioner having fulfilled all the statutory pre-requisites in

terms of section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003 is arbitrary. More so, she

submitted that the 2

nd

respondent Corporation authorities, without stating

any reasons, simply by displaying the application of the petitioner as

9

permanently rejected., which is highly illegal and antithetical to the

settled legal provisions, apart from gross violation of the principles of

natural justice as well as transgression of Articles 19 & 21 of Constitution

of India.

17. At last, learned counsel submitted that the 2

nd

respondent

Corporation would consider the petitioner’s application as per the Rules

in vogue.

Analysis and Conclusion:

18. On the basis of the above pleadings as well as contentious

assertions raised by the respective counsels on either side, this Court

venture to address the following core point:

(1) Whether the action of the 2

nd

respondent Corporation authorities

in permanently rejecting the petitioner’s application for new

electricity service connection is valid or not?

19. In this context, it is relevant to note the significance of electricity in

its different forms that would also trace its clues in multiple ways in Vedic

period also.

20. In view of the significance and importance attached to the

Electricity which is the inextricable and inseparable to the minute to

minute work in this generation and added to that, this Court within short

span of time with the present Roster of cases, noticed that the citizens

10

from the remote, isolated and under developed regions are anxiously

approaching Courts by invoking its extraordinary powers under Article

226 of the Constitution of the India seeking electricity service

connections for their right to eking out livelihood and overall

development, which is the central theme of our Indian Constitution.

21. It is apposite to state that electricity is one of the most important

necessities in our lives, and it is difficult to imagine a world without it.

From lighting rooms, to the computers and other advanced technology,

whether it is at homes, schools or workplaces, our daily routines heavily

rely upon the electricity. With the increase in digital technology in health

care, education, communication and numerous other fields, a stable

electricity supply is very essential and due to lack of such facility, the

very fundamental rights enunciated in Part III of our Indian Constitution

would be greatly affected.

22. In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

1

, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court while dealing with the Right to Shelter had observed that

right to shelter does not just mean a right to roof but includes right to all

infrastructural necessity too, which enables the individuals to live and

develop as a human being with adequate living space, safe and decent

1

(1996) 2 SCC 549

11

structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air, water,

electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities. The expression in terms

of our Apex Court reads as under:-

8. “In any organised society, right to live as a human being

is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is

secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop

himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his growth. All

human rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to live

guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food,

water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter.

These are basic human rights known to any civilised society. All

civil, political, social and cultural rights enshrined in the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Convention or

under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without

these basic human rights. Shelter for a human being, therefore,

is not a mere protection of his life and limb. It is home where he

has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and

spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living

space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent

surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity,

sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have

easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter,

therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over one's head

but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to

live and develop as a human being...”

23. Undisputedly, electricity, being a basic necessity, is an integral part

of “Right to Life” as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India. In Dilip (Dead) through LRs. v. Satish & Ors.

2

, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court observed that electricity is a basic amenity of which a

person cannot be deprived and the electricity supply authority is required

2

2022 SCC OnLine SC 810

12

to examine whether the applicant for electricity connection is in

occupation of the premises in question.

24. The Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted with the object and

intendment to consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission,

distribution, trading and use of electricity and also to protect the interest

of consumers and supply of electricity to all areas, more particularly, to

the rural regions. In fact, the Electricity Act, 2003 marked a paradigm

policy shift in power regime connoting specific responsibilities and duties

cast upon all the stakeholders in the power sector. In a nutshell, the

Electricity Act 2003 is a progressive legislation.

25. It is imperative to note the relevant provisions of the Electricity

Act, 2003. Part II, details the National Electricity Policy and Plan,

wherein, Section 5 of the Electricity Act, 2003 elaborates the National

Policy on electrification and local distribution in the rural areas. Section

6 of the Electricity Act, 2003, came into force on 15.06.2007 and casts a

joint responsibility on the State Government and Central Government in

rural electrification. In furtherance, the concerned governments

together have to take all steps to provide access to electricity to all

areas, including hamlets, villages, through development of rural

electricity infrastructure measures.

13

26. Part III of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with the generation of

electricity, such as hydro-electric and captive generation. Part IV of the

Electricity Act, 2003 enunciates licensing of the electricity power, transit,

supply, etc. Part V of the Electricity Act, 2003 highlights the transmission

of electricity inter-state and intra-state, while Part VI of the Electricity Act,

2003 deals with distribution of Electricity Provisions with respect to

distribution licensees, wherein, Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003

relates to duties of distribution licensee and open access. Section 43 of

the Electricity Act, 2003 clearly elucidates the duty to supply on request

in respect of the electricity service connection to the required persons.

Part VII of the Electricity Act, 2003 relates to Tariff and Part VIII of the

Electricity Act, 2003 relates to Works of Licensees. The remaining

provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 provide for the constitution of

electricity authorities, appellate forums, dispute resolution mechanism,

enforcement procedures and other protective clauses.

27. The Union of India also framed Electricity Rules, 2004 as well as

Forum of Regulators Rules, 2005, the Work of Licensees Rules,2006,

and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Rules, 2007, so as to give a

practical effect to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.

28. In the wake of the above statutory realm, it is apt to note section

43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is extracted hereunder:-

14

“Section 43. (Duty to supply on request): ---

(1) 1[Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution] licensee,

shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of

electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application

requiring such supply: Provided that where such supply requires extension of

distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution

licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such

extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the

Appropriate Commission: ”.

Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no

provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may

extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such

village or hamlet or area. 1[Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section,

“application” means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate

form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing

payment of necessary charges and other compliances.]

(2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required,

electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in

sub-section (1) : Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to

continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises

having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him

such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission.

(3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period

specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to

one thousand rupees for each day of default.”

A plain reading of Section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003 clearly reveals

that duty rests upon the distribution licensee to supply electricity to the

owner or occupier’s premises within one month from the date of receipt

of application, subject to fulfilling the pre-requisites. The Section also

stipulates penalties and judicial intervention in the event of failure on the

part of distribution licensee to comply with its duties.

15

29. The A.P.R.E.C. being a statutory body constituted under Section

82 of the Electricity Act, 2003 approved the “General Terms and

Conditions of Supply of Distribution and Retail Supply Licensee in

Andhra Pradesh” (GTCS)., after following the due procedure and

considering the General Terms and Conditions of Supply by the

Distribution companies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Clause 5 of the

GTCS deals with supply of Electricity. For the sake of comprehensive

view, the relevant clause 5 of the GTCS is extracted hereunder:

“5. Supply of Electricity

5.1 Company's Duty to Supply:

The Company shall, on an application by the owner or occupier

of any Premises, located in his area of supply, give supply of

electricity to such Premises in accordance with Section 43 of

the Act and the APERC ('Licensees' duty for supply of electricity

on request) Regulation, 2004 (No.3 of 2004) as well as the

APERC (Licensees' Standards of Performance) Regulation,

2004 (No.7 of 2004). The applicant must however ensure

compliance with the procedure specified in the GTCS.

5.2 Requisition for Supply:

The requisition shall be made by the owner or occupier of the

premises for which supply is required. The application form

complete in all respects and accompanied by the undertaking

and prescribed fees, charges and security, shall be submitted at

the office of the Officer specified in the Designated Officers'

Notification. The Company shall verify the application and the

enclosed documents at the time of receipt of application, and

shall issue a written acknowledgement.

………..”

30. The aforesaid clause mandate that requisition for electricity

supply preferred by the owner or occupier of the premises by submitting

16

complete application form along with requisites such as charges and

security deposits before the concerned authority upon receiving of said

complete application. In turn, the distribution licensee authorities are

duty bound to verify the said application along with accompanying

documents and issue written acknowledgment to that effect.

31. Coming to further relevant clause i.e., 5.2.6 of GTCS, which is

quoted here under:

“5.2.6 A consumer requiring supply for industrial or

commercial purposes for new or additional loads shall obtain

the necessary licence or permission or no-objection certificate

from the local authority or any other competent authority as

might be required under the statute.”

The above said clause also stipulates that any consumer seeking

electricity supply for industrial and commercial purposes is required to

obtain the necessary permission or No Objection Certificate from the

concerned local authority or competent authority.

32. It is also apt to mention that A.P.R.E.C., (Regulation No.6 of

2024) which was published in gazette on 28.08.2024 prescribes specific

standards to be followed by distribution licensee. Under Item IX of

Schedule II of the principal regulation, a mandatory duty is cast upon the

concerned distribution licensee to release the new connection after

receiving the required charges within the period of 15 days in rural

areas. It also provides that in the event of violation of the prescribed

17

standards, compensation shall be given to the consumer for each day of

default. For a holistic perspective, the above stated Regulation portion

which came into effect from 28.08.2024 onwards reads as follows:

Sl.No. Service

Area

Time

Standard

Compensation payable in case of

violation of standard

Compensation

payable to

individual

consumer if

the event

affects a

single

consumer

Compensation

payable to

individual

consumer if

the event

affects more

than one

consumer

IX Release of new connection/additional load upon payment of all

charges

i All cases if

connection is

feasible from

existing

network for

release of

supply

Within three

days in

metropolitan

areas,

Within seven

days in other

municipal areas

and

Within 15 days

in rural areas

Upon receipt of

the complete

application

(along with

prescribed

charges)

Rs.100 for each

day of the default

Not applicable

ii. Network expansion / enhancement required to release of

supply

a Release of

supply - Low

Tension

With in 30 days

of receipt of

prescribed

charges

Rs.100 for each

day of default

b Release of

supply - High

With in 60 days

of receipt of

Rs.100 for each

day of default

18

Tension 11

KV

prescribed

charges

Not applicable

c Release of

supply - High

Tension 33

KV

With in 90 days

of receipt of

prescribed

charges

Rs.500 for each

day of default

d Release of

supply –

Extra High

Tension

With in 180

days of receipt

of prescribed

charges

Rs.500 for each

day of default

e Erection of

substation

required to

release of

supply

Where such

supply requires

commissioning

of new

substations, the

distribution

licensee shall

supply the

electricity to

such premises

immediately

after such

commissioning

within a period

not exceeding

90 days

Rs.1000 for each

day of default

(BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION)

Place: Kurnool P. KRISHNA,

Date: 27.08.2024 Commission Secretary (I/c).

33. In the light of above statutory provisions, coupled with relevant

Rules and regulatory schemes, it is evident that the one of the laudable

objectives of legislative bodies is to provide electricity supply to needy

people who applied by fulfilling procedural pre-requisites. Another

significant facet is that the above statutory prism also specifies that in

the event the licensee fails to supply electricity within a prescribed

period, the distribution licensee become liable to pay compensation for

each day of delay, as determined by the concerned regulatory authority.

19

Hence, the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, are mandatory in

nature. It is also well settled that ‘mandatory provision gives no

discretion to the concerned authorities, who are bound to follow

mandatory provisions without any retractions upon fulfilling the

prerequisites.

34. Importantly, the above statutory provisions encompassed in the

Electricity Act, 2003 and its rules were also extremely and vividly

articulated by the Constitutional Courts, out of which, some of pivotal

expressions are discussed here under with a sole object to gain a

complete picture.

35. In Chandu Khamaru v. Nayan Malik and Ors.

3

, the Apex Court

clarified that Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 imposes statutory

and mandatory obligation on the distribution licensee to supply electricity

to any applicant who complies with the prescribed formalities and held

that supply cannot be denied on the basis of private disputes, including

ownership or third-party objections, as such, issues fall outside the

scope of the licensee’s authority. It also explains that timely access to

electricity is a basic necessity, and any unjustified refusal or delay would

be contrary to the object of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The

relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-

3

(2011) 12 SCC 314

20

“7. ...Sub-section (1) of Section 43 provides that every distribution

licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises,

give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of

the application requiring such supply. These provisions in the Electricity

Act, 2003 make it amply clear that a distribution licensee has a statutory

duty to 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 for and obtain such

electric supply from the distribution licensee…….”

36. In Brihanmumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking v.

Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission

4

, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, while interpreting Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003,

held that the provision imposes universal service obligation on every

distribution licensee to supply electricity to any owner or occupier within

its area upon application and also emphasized that this duty is statutory

and mandatory, reflecting the essential nature of electricity as a public

utility. At the same time, Apex Court also clarified that such obligation

operates within the framework of the Act, and regulations, allowing the

licensee to enforce reasonable conditions such as compliance with

technical requirements and payment of charges. Thus, Section 43 of the

Act, 2003 ensures a right to access electricity, balanced by regulatory

control to maintain efficiency and financial discipline in the power sector.

The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

4

(2015) 2 SCC 438

21

26. “......Here, it excludes local authority, as distributor of electricity from

such an obligation. However, when it comes to the duty of distribution

licensee to supply the electricity under Section 43, it mandates that same is

to be given to the owner or occupier of any premises on his application

within one month from the receipt of the said application. This duty under

Section 43 imposed upon a distribution licensee does not distinguish

between a local authority and other distribution licensee. It is also not a

case of the appellant that in a particular area where a local authority is a

distribution licensee, there cannot be any other distribution licensee at

all……..”

37. In the case of Dilip (referred to supra), the Apex Court observed

that electricity supply is statutory service arising out of a contractual

relationship between the consumer and the electricity authority, and the

obligation to pay electricity charges is confined to the person who

consumed the electricity. It was held that such dues do not attach to the

property itself and therefore cannot be automatically enforced against a

subsequent purchaser. However, the authority is entitled to prescribe

lawful conditions, including clearance of arrears, for granting fresh

electricity connection, to safeguard its revenue.

9. “It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity

of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a

tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection

certificate....”

22

38. In K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Borad

5

, the three (3)

Judge Bench of the Apex Court, held and clarified that the licensee is

entitled to insist upon compliance with statutory requirements, including

payment of outstanding dues attached to the premises, and adherence

to the supply code and emphasized that electricity supply is premises-

centric rather than purely consumer-centric. Therefore, new applicant

may be required to clear past dues linked to the property before granting

fresh connection. Thus, Section 43 creates a right to supply, but one

that is regulated by lawful conditions to ensure financial discipline and

prevent misuse.

39. In Smt. Villuri Sirisha Rani v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Writ

Petition No. 28943 of 2024, dated: 16.12.2024), this Hon’ble Court, while

interpreting Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, held that statutory

duty is held upon the electricity distribution licensee to supply electricity

to any premises upon an application made by the owner or occupier

within the prescribed time and emphasized that this obligation is

mandatory in nature, cannot be denied merely on the ground of disputes

regarding title or alleged unauthorized construction. Relying on Section

43 of the Electricty Act, 2003, the Court concluded that electricity supply

as basic amenity, and the authorities were bound to restore the

connection notwithstanding objections from local authorities.

5

(2023) 14 SCC 431

23

40. In B. Munirathnam v. Andhra Pradesh Southern Power

Distribution Company Ltd. (Writ Petition No. 7120 of 2024, dated

26.03.2024), the Court addressed the arbitrary delay in granting an

electricity connection to the petitioner and held that access to electricity,

being a basic necessity, cannot be denied or kept pending without valid

justification and the lack of authority to communicate without giving clear

reasons or deficiencies in writing was found to be violative of the

principles of natural justice and fairness. Further, it is emphasised that

administrative authorities are duty-bound to act in transparent, reasoned

manner, and any unexplained inaction offends Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution.

41. Reverting to the case on hand, the petitioner placed Exs.P.3, P.4

& P.5. Ex.P.3 is an application for the supply of electricity bearing

registration No.NSCREG03556196 dated 20.09.2025 with relevant fee.

Ex.P.4 is No-Objection Certificate dated 20.09.2025 from the concerned

Gram Panchayat. Ex.P.5 is House tax receipt depicting the petitioner’s

name. A cumulative perusal of Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5 submitted by the

petitioner clearly suggests that he has fulfilled all pre-requisite conditions

i.e., filling the application with the under taking form, requisite fee and

also no objection certificate from the concerned competent civic

authority for obtaining new electricity service connection.

24

42. The case canvassed by the petitioner is that, after completion of

the required period from the date of his application, he approached the

6

th

respondent office and enquired about his application status. Later, on

10.10.2025, the 6

th

respondent personnel came to the petitioner’s

premises along with village linemen so as to fix the electricity service

connection, but due to local political pressures, the 6

th

respondent

personnel stopped installation of the electricity service meter and went

away along with the said meter.

43. The petitioner also projected that in spite of his repeated

enquiries with the 2

nd

respondent Corporation personnel, they have not

informed any reasons for not extending the electricity service

connection. At last, the petitioner came to know through the online

portal maintained by the 2

nd

respondent Corporation that the application

was permanently rejected.

44. Evidently, as stated supra, the 2

nd

respondent Corporation

authorities have not filed any counter affidavit to deny the case asserted

by the petitioner. However, the 2

nd

respondent Corporation authorities'

version, as argued by the learned Junior Standing Counsel, is that the

respondent Corporation had not disputed the application dated

20.09.2025 (Ex.P.1) preferred by the petitioner for new electricity service

connection. She contended that the petitioner’s wife service connection

25

bearing No.133320N42000140 was disconnected and there was an

arrears still pending and in spite of the 6

th

respondent phone calls, to the

petitioner, there was no response for payment.

45. Apparently, the 2

nd

respondent Corporation authorities neither

denied nor disputed the rejection of the petitioner’s application

permanently through online web-portal for electricity supply connection

(Ex.P.1). So far as the assertion made by the petitioner regarding local

interference that was culminated into non-installation of the meter in the

subject premises, the petitioner except self-serving statement made in

the affidavit about the local political intervention., has not ventured to

array the said political personality as party respondent nor filed any

single scrap of paper to substantiate it. Hence, this court is not delving

into those superficial aspects.

46. The version of the 2

nd

respondent Corporation is that the subject

premises already ha s service connection bearing

No.133320N42000140, which was disconnected and arrears with regard

to the said service connection are pending. It is relevant to note that

even according to the version of the 2

nd

respondent’s Corporation, the

above service connection bearing No.133320N42000140 stands in the

name of Smt.K.Madhura Meenakshi, who is the wife of the petitioner.

26

47. Whereas, the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the electricity service connection stands in the name of the

petitioner’s wife, Smt. K.Madhura Meenakshi, who made request to shift

the electricity connection, then the said connection was disconnected

and removed by the 6

th

respondent Authority after issuing the written

notice Rc.No.AE 201/2024, dated 12.07.2024. Further, the learned

counsel for the petitioner also contended that the 2

nd

respondent

corporation personnel are merely attempting to dispute the case of the

petitioner without any clarity.

48. Even assuming for a moment that the case exposed by the 2

nd

respondent Corporation is true and correct, indisputably, the electricity

service connection bearing No.133320N42000140 stands in the name of

Smt.K.Madhura Meenakshi, but not in the name of the petitioner and

even as per the Notice vide Rc.No.AE 201/2024 dated 12.07.2024 (filed

along with I.A 2 of 2026), the above service connection was removed by

the 6

th

respondent Authority. In view of specific assertions made by the

petitioner that she has paid certain amounts towards the due and by way

of official communication dated 12.07.2024, the 2

nd

respondent

Corporation informed the petitioner to clear the arrears, but not to the

petitioner’s wife. Moreover, the 2

nd

respondent corporation has also not

produced the relevant copy of said bills or any communication

27

addresses to the concerned. In the absence of above, the assertions of

the respondent Corporation remain pale and insignificant.

49. Evidently, the 2

nd

respondent Corporation did not take such a

ground or reason in permanently rejecting the petitioner’s new electricity

service connection. In this aspect, the law is well settled in the dictum

held by the Apex Court in K.S Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner of

India.

6

“…….The second equally relevant matter is that when a

statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its

validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot

be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or

otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the

time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by

additional grounds later brought out……..”

50. That apart, the petitioner, by categorically mentioning his

requirement that he has to start flour mill business in his subject property

situated at Parampet, Srikakulum District, has applied for electricity

connection by paying the pre-requisite charges along with No-Objection

Certificate dated 20.09.2025 issued by the concerned Civic Authority.

Thereafter, the said application of the petitioner dated 20.09.2025 was

rejected permanently by the 2

nd

respondent Corporation authority on

their website portal without assigning any reasons at all.

6

1978 (1) SCC 405

28

51. Yet another significant aspect involved in the lis is that the

petitioner, after knowing the fact that his application dated 20.09.2025

has been permanently rejected through the online web portal, preferred

written representation dated 20.02.2026 to the 6

th

respondent by

marking the said copies to the other officials of the 2

nd

respondent

Corporation, so as to know the specific reasons for permanently

rejecting his application. In proof of the same, the petitioner placed

copy of written representation dated 20.02.2026 (Ex.P-2) along with

postal track delivery reports (Ex.P-6), which confirm that the said

representation dated 20.02.2026 was delivered to the 2

nd

respondent

Corporation authorities. In other words, the 2

nd

respondent Corporation

authorities, despite receiving the written representation dated

20.02.2026 from the petitioner, has not initiated any remedial measures

to rectify their unilateral action either.

52. Even if the petitioner’s application was incomplete due to lack of

proper enclosures at that juncture also, it is the duty of the 2

nd

respondent Corporation authorities to give specific reasons for rejection

of the petitioner’s application. Whereas, the 2

nd

respondent Corporation

simply mentioned in their online portal that the petitioner’s application

status as “Permanently Rejected”, without any reasons at all. Such an

action from the 2

nd

respondent Corporation on the primary ground

29

without giving specific reasons, is not only illegal, but also clear

transgression of principles of natural justice. Moreover, the right to

know the reasons for decision which adversely affects person or

property., is a basic right of every litigant (whether the forum be judicial

or administrative).

53. In this facet, it is apt to note the authoritative Constitution Bench

decision held in Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt etc. Vs. The

Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept.

and Ors.

7

. While giving the majority judgment, a reference was made to

Broom's Legal Maxims (1939 Edition, page 97), where the principle in

Latin reads as follows:

“ 29 …...Ces-sante Ratione Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex" in

general version "Reason is the soul of the law, and when the

reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself.”

54. Thus, way back in the year 1980 itself, the Constitutional dictum

emphasized the importance of reasons, holding that they are inextricable

and inseparable part of any orders passed by the adjudicating Foras.

55. Again, in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood

Ahmed Khan

8

, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, after scanning the

authoritative judicial pronouncements in detail and articulated the

7

(1979) 4 SCC 642

8

(2010) 9 SCC 496

30

importance of reasoning by the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities, as

under:

“ 47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record

reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect

anyone prejudicially.

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of

its conclusions.

c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the

wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it

must also appear to be done as well.

d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on

any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or

even administrative power.

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the

decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding

extraneous considerations.

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a

component of a decision making process as observing principles

of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by

administrative bodies.

g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior

Courts.

h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule

of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned

decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of

judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the

soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these

days can be as different as the judges and authorities who

deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose

which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have

been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the

litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial

accountability and transparency.

31

k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough

about his/her decision making process, then it is impossible to

know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of

precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in

support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A

pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be

equated with a valid decision making process.

m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non

of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision

making not only makes the judges and decision makers less

prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.

(See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100

Harward Law Review 731-737).

n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the

broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said

requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and

was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19

EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford,

2001 EWCA Civ. 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of

European Convention of Human Rights which requires,

"adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial

decisions".

o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in

setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development

of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the

essence and is virtually a part of “Due Process.”

56. Given the above statutory realm in vogue, coupled with the

authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this Court, it

is crystal clear that the right to electricity is an integral and inextricable

part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and if there is any violation

of the same, it affects the fundamental rights enunciated in Part III of the

Constitution of India. In view of the significance & importance attached

to electricity as detailed above, right from the Vedic period till the present

32

contemptuous generation i.e., Gen-Z and Alpha., the usage of electricity

in multiple dimensions basic fundamental thing for minute to minute

work.

57. For the foregoing discussion and conclusion arrived at, this Court

is of the view that the 2

nd

respondent Corporation authorities are

required to follow the mandatory provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 &

various Rules framed in terms of the above consolidated enactment that

would uplift the constitutional objects. Therefore, the writ petition is

disposed of, in the following terms:

i. The action of the 2

nd

respondent Corporation in permanently

rejecting the petitioner’s application dated 20.09.2025 for

grant of new electricity service connection bearing

registration No.NSCREG03556196., is set aside.

ii. The 2

nd

respondent Corporation authorities, are hereby

directed to process the petitioner’s application dated

20.09.2025 bearing registration No.NSCREG03556196.,

afresh, on collection of charges, if any, by following the true

letter and spirit of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and

relevant Rules thereon, within a period of two (2) weeks,

from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

iii. In view of the significance attached to electricity in the day-

to-day lives of people as discussed (supra), this Court also

deems it appropriate to direct the 1

st

respondent to initiate all

comprehensive and effective measures to implement the

statutory provisions, without any retraction. Hence, the 1

st

respondent is hereby directed to instruct all the distribution

licensees in the State of Andhra Pradesh to submit their

respective comprehensive reports for every three (03)

months., with particulars such as date of applications for

electricity service connection, processing time and final result

of the said application. Based on that, the 1

st

respondent

shall, in turn, conduct review of the said reports and issue

33

appropriate directions/guidelines to the distribution licensees

in order to fulfil the constitutional goals as well as the

statutory provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 & relevant

Rules thereon., subject to the ground realities and

requirements.

58. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no

order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand

closed.

______________________________________

JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

Date: 22.06.2026

GVK

L.R to be marked

B/o.

GVK

34

01

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION No: 8103 of 2026

Date: 22.06.2026

GVK