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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more