Skip to main content

Electricity supply is a legal right, Madras high court says

 In a landmark ruling, the Madras high court has said electricity supply is a legal right and denial of power supply is a violation of human rights.

Justice S Manikumar, directing the Tiruvannamalai district administration and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) to give electricity supply to more than 180 families of launderers living along Girivalam (circumambulation) path in Tiruvannamalai, on Tuesday said: "Access to electricity should be construed as a human right. Denial of it would amount to violation of human rights."

Noting that electricity has a bearing on education, health and family economy of the poor, Justice Manikumar said: "Lack of electricity supply is one of the determinative factors, affecting education, health and a cause of economy disparity, and consequently, inequality in society leading to poverty. Electricity supply is an aid to get information and knowledge. Children without electricity supply cannot even imagine competing with others."

The launderers had filed a petition saying though they had been living on poromboke land (government land without clear titles) along the holy Girivalam path in Tiruvannamalai for several decades, electricity supply had been denied to them. Their counsel G Pari cited a municipal committee decision to deny them power supply, and said the committee cannot override statutory provisions and electricity supply code.

Concurring with him, Justice Manikumar said: "Lack of electricity denies people equal opportunities in the matter of education and consequently suitable employment, health, sanitation and other socio-economic rights. Right to electricity of a person occupying government land is recognized in the distribution code and it is integral to the achievement of socio-economic rights."

The judge underlined the social duty of authorities and said: "It is the fundamental duty of the authorities to show compassion to those who are living in huts and tenements for long. When socio and economic justice is the mandate of the Constitution, it is a travesty of justice to deny electricity to the petitioners."

Pointing out that there is evidence to prove that they were living in the Girivalam area at least since 2005, Justice Manikumar said: "Though the district administration and municipality have claimed that the petitioners are encroachers, they cannot be expected to live in darkness. Even an occupant of a government poromboke site is entitled to seek a decent living with basic amenities like water, food, shelter and clothing. Electricity is indispensable. It would be inappropriate to contend that the petitioners are not entitled to electricity supply."

He directed the TNEB authorities to provide electricity connections to the families within four weeks.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Electricity-supply-is-a-legal-right-Madras-high-court-says/articleshow/23841025.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.