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...

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...