IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7764 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:29.08.2011 Pratibha Sharma wife of Shri Rajesh Sharma, Proprietor M/s Rupali Food & Sweets, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, and another. ...Petitioners versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Jagjit Singh Lalli, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. Written statement filed in Court on behalf of respondent No.3, is taken on record. 2. The petitioners seek for a fresh electricity connection on the ground that the landowner in whose name the electricity connection had been given, had caused the Electricity Board to disconnect the supply. The justification of the owner is that the petitioners are trespassers, who had come by possession of property through a licence for a period of 11 months but they continued to stay in the same house. 3. The issue of ownership is irrelevant and the electricity is considered now as a basic amenity in the scheme outlined under Section 43 of the Electricity Act of 2003 and such an amenity cannot be Civil Writ Petition No.7764 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - withdrawn at the whims of the owner of the building to the detriment of an occupier of the premises. The possession is an admitted fact and it is always open for the owner to secure possession in the manner known to law. The counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are willing to pay the arrears of any electricity charges left behind by the owner. The counsel for the Electricity Board states that Rs.1,29,325/- was due out of which, some amount has been paid by the landlord. The petitioners may apprise themselves about the outstanding and serve a notice to the Electricity Board within a week to elicit the amount still payable and if the amount is paid, the Electricity Board shall give electricity connection on taking appropriate indemnity as contemplated by the Regulations. This will have no bearing to the issue of ownership or the entitlement of the owner to eject them in the manner that is possible by law. The counsel for the owner states that there is an alternative remedy available under the Electricity Act. The electricity which is conceded as a basic amenity, the withdrawal of such amenity constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, an alternative remedy is no bar for a person to secure the relief by means of a writ petition. 4. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 29.08.2011 sanjeev