Electricity Is An Essential Commodity, Rules Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with an order restoring electricity connection to occupants of a premises whose supply was disconnected by CESC over safety concerns, holding that living without electricity in modern times amounts to "deprivation of a meaningful civilized living."

A Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee was hearing an appeal filed by the landlords, Avijit Singha Roy and another, against a single-judge order dated August 6, 2026, passed in a writ petition filed by occupants of the premises seeking restoration of their power supply.

The electricity connection had been disconnected by CESC after water was found percolating to the existing meter board position, which the utility flagged as a fire and electrocution hazard. CESC told the court that it was imperative that the supply be cut to prevent any accident.

The single-judge order had directed CESC to restore the connection once the occupants applied afresh in the requisite form, with CESC required to furnish a quotation for costs and charges within two working days. Once the deposit was made, CESC was to employ men and machinery to remove the existing service cable and installation from the old meter board position, enabling the occupants to repair the dilapidated meter board and wall. Before undertaking repairs, intimation was to be given to the municipal authorities. The occupants were also permitted to set up a fresh meter board adjacent to the existing one on the outer wall, in consultation with CESC, after which supply could be restored if CESC found the repair work satisfactory. The court was informed that electricity had, by then, already been restored to the writ petitioners as well as other similarly placed occupants who had approached CESC.

Senior Advocate Aniruddha Chatterjee, appearing for the appellant landlords argued that the single-judge order, though appearing innocuous, directly affected the landlords' rights and ran contrary to an order passed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation under Section 412A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which was itself under challenge in separate pending appeals arising from two other writ petitions. He submitted that the occupants had no right to remain in the dilapidated premises and enjoy electricity, and that allowing the supply to continue would amount to the High Court acknowledging their right to stay on.

Advocate Biswaroop Bhattacharya, appearing for the writ petitioners countered that the challenge to the KMC's Section 412A proceedings was pending separately, with an interim order referring the matter to mediation, and that the writ petition over electricity restoration was entirely independent of those proceedings. Advocate Pratik Majumder, appearing for other added respondents, submitted that restoration of electricity should not be read as creating any equity in favour of the occupants.

CESC was represented by Debanjan Mukherjee and Subhajit Chatterjee, while the State appeared through Additional Government Pleader Tapas Kr. Chatterjee.

After hearing all sides, the bench declined to interfere with the restoration of supply, observing that electricity is an essential commodity and that the right to live in a healthy and dignified manner is guaranteed by the Constitution. The court clarified that the appeal was confined strictly to the question of restoring electricity to those already in occupation or who had subsequently come into occupation, and did not decide the status of the occupants themselves in any manner.

It further clarified that restoration of supply would not create any right or equity in favour of the occupants, and would remain subject to the proceedings initiated by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, or any civil proceedings.

The appeal and the connected application were accordingly disposed of by the bench, with no order passed as to costs. The court also directed that an urgent photostat certified copy of the order be made available to the parties on the usual undertaking.

Case Title: Sri Avijit Singha Roy & Anr. vs. M/s. GTS Constructions & Ors.

Order Date: August 27, 2026

Bench: Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee

Tags: