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

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.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

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...