JUDGMENT ON BOARD : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Invoking Writ Appellate jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, this Writ Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants herein calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the Order dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure A-1) by which the learned Single Judge has disposed of W.P.(C) No.3657 of 2019 (Pawan Kumar Jain (Dhopade) and Another Vs. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and Others) refusing to grant relief(s) as claimed therein. 2. The admitted position in the instant case is that the Appellant No.1 - Pawan Kumar Jain (Dhopade) was the son of Respondent No.5 – Ramchandra Dhopade and the Appellant No.2 - Smt. Neha Jain is the wife of Appellant No.1. During pendency of this Writ Appeal, the Appellant No.1 died and his two sons, Paras Jain and Prithvi Raj Jain, have been substituted as Appellants No.1(A) and 1(B) respectively as his heirs on the record. 3. That the Appellants No.1 & 2 both were residing in the subject premises situated at Jagdalla, Champa in District Janjgir-Champa. The Respondent No.5 is said to have given the premises in question to the Appellants No.1 & 2 to stay. However, on account of strained relationship, vide Annexure A-2 dated 12.4.2019, the Respondent No.5 directed the Appellants No.1 & 2 to vacate the subject premises as he was in need of the said premises. Simultaneously, vide Annexure A-4, the Respondent No.5 filed an application before the Respondent-authorities to disconnect the electricity connection of the subject premises, which was standing in the name of Respondent No.5. Acting upon the said application made by Respondent No.5, the Respondent authorities disconnected the electricity supply of the subject premises on 13.9.2019. For restoration of the electricity supply, the Appellants approached the Respondent authorities but to no avail, which led to the filing of W.P. (C) No.3657 of 2019 titled as “Pawan Kumar Jain (Dhopade) and Another Vs. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and Others” before the Writ Court. For restoration of the electricity supply, the Appellants approached the Respondent authorities but to no avail, which led to the filing of W.P. (C) No.3657 of 2019 titled as “Pawan Kumar Jain (Dhopade) and Another Vs. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and Others” before the Writ Court. By impugned Order dated 22.10.2019, the learned Single Judge disposed of the said Writ Petition recording the undertaking given by the counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 to 4 authorities that in case the Appellants apply for a fresh electricity connection the same shall be provided to them subject to NOC (No Objection Certificate) granted by the owner of the suit premises (Respondent No.5), in terms of clause 4.18 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2011. However, the Respondent No.5/owner of the subject premises, has not granted NOC to the Appellants No.1 & 2, which resulted in filing of the present Writ Appeal by the Appellants No.1 & 2 against the impugned Order passed by learned Single Judge. 4. On notice being issued to the Respondent authorities including Respondent No.5 – Ramchandra Dhopade, the Respondent No.5 has chosen not to appear before this Court. However, he has sent his reply opposing grant of electricity connection to Appellants No.1 & 2 (Appellant No.1 has since died), which has been taken on record. 5. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, would submit that Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is mandatory in nature and even for non-supply of electricity connection, consequence of penalty has been provided under Section 43(3) of the Electricity Act that if the distribution licensee fails to supply electricity within the period specified in sub- section (1), he would be liable to pay penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default, which is also mandatory in nature. He would further submit that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 30.9.2021, the Appellants are utilizing the electricity supply in the subject premises and that the dispute in the instant case is in fact between the father and son, which could be adjudicated upon by the jurisdictional Civil Court and that the electricity connection cannot be refused in view of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, as such, the impugned Order is liable to be set- aside. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 to 4 authorities, would vehemently oppose the submissions made on behalf of the Appellants and submit that the subject premises is owned by Respondent No.5 and, being the owner of the suit premises, unless NOC is granted to Appellant No.2, in view of clause 4.19 of the Electricity Supply Code, no electricity connection can be provided to the Appellants. He would further submit that the right to electricity is not an absolute right and it is covered under the statutory paradigm designed in the Electricity Act and the Electricity Supply Code and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeal affirming the impugned Order passed by learned Single Judge. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record of the case with utmost circumspection. 8. It is not in dispute that relationship between the Appellant No.1 (since died) and Respondent No.5 is of son and father. The Respondent No.5 had allowed the Appellant No.1 and Appellant No.2 (wife of Appellant No.1) to stay and use the subject premises. Meanwhile, however, the relationship between the Respondent No.5 and the Appellants No.1 & 2 got strained. Consequently, the Respondent No.5 directed the Appellants No.1 & 2 to vacate the subject premises, as per Annexure A-2 dated 12.4.2019. Simultaneously, vide Annexure P-4, the Respondent No.5 also requested the Respondent authorities to disconnect the electricity connection of the subject premises which was given by him to the Appellants No.1 & 2. The Respondent authorities acceded to the request made by Respondent No.5 and disconnected the electricity supply of the subject premises, for restoration of which the Appellants No.1 & 2/Writ Petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.3657 of 2019 before the Writ Court. By the impugned Order dated 22.10.2019, the Writ Court disposed of the said Writ Petition in view of the undertaking given by Respondents No.1 to 4/authorities of the Electricity Department, that the electricity connection will be provided to the Appellants No.1 & 2 subject to NOC granted by Respondent No.5 for restoration of the electricity supply in the subject premises, as the Respondent No.5 is the owner of the subject premises and the Appellants No.1 & 2 are the occupiers of the said premises. However, since no NOC was granted by the Respondent No.5, the electricity connection was not restored by the Respondents No.1 to 4 authorities to the Appellants herein. 9. In order to adjudicate the dispute, it would be appropriate to notice Sections 43 and 44 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which provide duty to supply on request. For ready reference, Sections 43 and 44 are being reproduced herein below:- “43. Duty to supply on request.—(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply: Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission: Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “application” means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances. (2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1): Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission. (3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default. 44. Exceptions from duty to supply electricity.—Nothing contained in section 43 shall be taken as requiring a distribution licensee to give supply of electricity to any premises if he is prevented from so doing by cyclone, floods, storms or other occurrences beyond his control.” 10. 44. Exceptions from duty to supply electricity.—Nothing contained in section 43 shall be taken as requiring a distribution licensee to give supply of electricity to any premises if he is prevented from so doing by cyclone, floods, storms or other occurrences beyond his control.” 10. A careful perusal of Section 43 of the Electricity Act would show that in Section 43, the word “shall” has been used. Section 43 begins with the heading “duty to supply on request”. Section 44 begins with the heading “exceptions from duty to supply electricity” stating that nothing contained in Section 43 shall be taken as requiring a distribution licensee to give supply of electricity to any premises if he is prevented from so doing by cyclone, floods, storms or other occurrences beyond his control. Therefore, it is quite vivid that there is a statutory obligation to provide electricity to the owner or occupier of the premises. The term “premises” is defined in sub-section (51) of Section 2 of the Electricity Act as “premises” includes any land, building or structure. As stated, “occupier” means the person in occupation (whether as owner or otherwise) of the premises, where Electricity is used or intended to be used. Proviso to Section 43(2) of the Electricity Act provides that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission. Thus, from the statutory provisions of the Electricity Act it flows that it is the intention of the Legislature to provide electricity supply to all the persons, whether they are the owners of the property or occupiers, as the case may be, as between the owner and occupier, like in the case of a Landlord and Tenant, a mortgagee, assignee and any other person, who is in lawful possession of the premises. 11. Section 43(3) of the Electricity Act provides for consequence of penalty on failure to comply with the prescribed requirement and once the consequence is provided for non-compliance of the statutory provision, that provision is always held to be mandatory. There is no discretion left with the authority in case of provision being mandatory in nature. Failure to adhere to mandatory provision, entailing penalty, the provision is imperative. There is no discretion left with the authority in case of provision being mandatory in nature. Failure to adhere to mandatory provision, entailing penalty, the provision is imperative. In the light of above-stated analysis, it is held that Section 43 of the Electricity Act has to be construed as mandatory to provide electricity supply to owner or occupier of the premises where the electricity is used or intended to be used. 12. Access to electricity should be construed as a human right, of course, to the requirements to be satisfied under the Electricity laws. Denial of the same, upon even satisfying the requirements, would amount to violation of human rights. 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Chameli Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., (1996) 2 SCC 549 discussed the components of right to live and specifically observed that right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and further observed that right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to shelter and while discussing the right to shelter, it has been held that right to shelter includes electricity which is undisputedly, an essential service to the shelter for a human being. It was observed thus:- “7. In State of Karnataka v. Narasimhamurthy ( AIR 1996 SC 90 ) SCC p. 526, para 7: JT at p. 378, para 7), this Court held that right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution ...” 8. ...Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civil amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation …” 14. Similarly, in the matter of Chandu Khamaru v. Nayan Malik & Ors., 2011 (12) SCC 314 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that by virtue of Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, the distribution company is under legal obligation to supply electricity, which cannot be denied on account of a dispute, as the owner or occupier has right to get electricity for his premises and held in paragraphs – 7, 11 & 12 as under:- “7. It will be clear from sub-section (1) of Section 42 that every distribution licensee has a duty to develop and maintain an efficient coordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 43 provides that every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. These provisions in the Electricity Act, 2003 make it amply clear that a distribution licensee has a statutory duty to supply electricity to an owner or occupier of any premises located in the area of supply of electricity of the distribution licensee, if such owner or occupier of the premises applies for it, and correspondingly every owner or occupier of any premises has a statutory right to apply for and obtain such electric supply from the distribution licensee. *** *** *** 11. We may now apply the aforesaid provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 to the facts of the present case. The appellant has a statutory right to apply for and obtain supply of electricity from the distribution licensee and the distribution licensee has a corresponding statutory obligation to supply electricity to the appellant. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also do not object to the supply of electricity by the distribution licensee to the appellant as it will be clear from the averments made in writ petition No.345 of 2005 filed by them before the High Court but they object to the line for supply of electricity being drawn through the passage in Dag Nos.406, 407 and 409 which they claim to be theirs. The further grievance of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 is that they were not made parties in the earlier Writ Petition No.18220 of 2004 filed by the appellant in which the High Court directed the distribution licensee to effect supply of electricity to the house of the appellant. 12. The case of the appellant, on the other hand, is that this passage is not a private passage of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 but is a common passage and therefore an electric line can be drawn through this common passage. 12. The case of the appellant, on the other hand, is that this passage is not a private passage of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 but is a common passage and therefore an electric line can be drawn through this common passage. This dispute will have to be resolved in Civil Suit No.83 of 2004 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah, or in any other suit, but pending resolution of this dispute between the parties, the appellant cannot be denied supply of electricity to his house.” 15. The Madras High Court in the matter of T.M. Prakash & Ors. v. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai & Anr., 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 3001 has held that access to electricity supply should also be considered as a right to life, in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and observed as under: - “66. Lack of Electricity supply is one of the determinative factors, affecting education, health, cause for economic disparity and consequently, inequality in the society, leading to poverty. Electricity supply is an aid to get information and knowledge. Children without Electricity supply cannot even imagine to compete with others, who have the supply. Women have to struggle with firewood, kerosene, in the midst of smoke. Air pollution causes lung diseases and respiratory problems. Electricity supply to the poor, supports education and if it is coupled with suitable employment, disparity is reduced to certain extent. Lack of education and poverty result in child labour. *** *** *** 68. The Respondents ought to have visualised the difficulties of the women, children and aged persons, living in the huts for several years, without Electricity. Electricity supply is an essential and important factor for achieving socio-economic rights, to achieve the constitutional goals with sustainable development and reduction of poverty, which encompasses lower standards of living, affects education, health, sanitation and many aspects of life. Food, shelter and clothing alone may be sufficient to have a living. But it should be a meaningful purpose. Lack of Electricity denies a person to have equal opportunities in the matter of education and consequently, suitable employment, health, sanitation and other socio-economic rights. Without providing the same, the constitutional goals, like Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity cannot be achieved.” 16. But it should be a meaningful purpose. Lack of Electricity denies a person to have equal opportunities in the matter of education and consequently, suitable employment, health, sanitation and other socio-economic rights. Without providing the same, the constitutional goals, like Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity cannot be achieved.” 16. The principle of law laid down in Chandu Khamaru (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court (Three Judge Bench – Judgment) in the matter of K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 663 and it was held by their Lordships as under:- “32. According to Section 43, the distribution licensee is obligated to supply electricity to the premises of an owner or occupier within a month of the receipt of an application requiring such supply. The provision casts a duty on the distribution licensee to supply electricity to the owner or occupier’s premises. Correspondingly, the owner or occupier of the premises has a right to apply for and obtain electric supply from the distribution licensee [Chandu Khamaru v. Nayan Malik, (2011) 12 SCC 314 ]. Both the right and the corresponding duty are imposed by the statute. The owner or occupier of the premises has to submit an application to avail of the supply of electricity. *** *** *** 43. Thus, the duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is not absolute, and is subject to the such charges and compliances stipulated by the distribution licensees as part of the application. *** *** *** 54. The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is only with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises, and not the premises, as it is the owner or occupier who has the statutory right to “demand” electricity for the premises under their use or occupation. Further, it is the applicant who has to fulfill all the statutory conditions laid down under the 2003 Act to become entitled to get supply of electricity to their premises. The applicant has to pay the necessary charges and comply with all terms and conditions as determined by the appropriate commission for the supply of electricity. 55. It is true that Sections 43 and 44 of the 2003 Act talk about supply of electricity to premises. However, the use of such phrases is borne out of the practical consideration of supply of electricity. 55. It is true that Sections 43 and 44 of the 2003 Act talk about supply of electricity to premises. However, the use of such phrases is borne out of the practical consideration of supply of electricity. Unlike other goods, a distribution licensee cannot insist that the consumer come to their factory or warehouse to receive the supply of electricity. The distribution licensee necessarily has to lay down special infrastructure such as electricity lines and transformers to transmit electricity and supply it directly to the consumer, at their premises. On an application, the distribution licensee is statutorily obliged to supply electricity to the consumer. Consequently, the place where the supply of electricity is to be made has to be necessarily identified. Thus, Section 43 and 44 refer to the consumer’s premises to fix the situs for the purpose of supplying electricity.” 17. The decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Chameli Singh (supra) has been followed by the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Amarendra Singh v. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2008 Cal 66 holding that once a person is considered as the occupier, he is entitled to electricity connection, and the legality and/or validity of occupation of the premises can be decided in civil court. Similar is the proposition laid down by the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Fashion Proprietor Aswani Kumar Maity vs. West Bengal Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2009 Cal 87 holding that Section 43 of the Electricity Act makes it incumbent on a licensee to supply electricity to an owner or occupier of any premises. 18. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that Appellant No.1 (since died) and Appellant No.2 are occupiers of the subject premises as is apparent from the reply sent by Respondent No.5 and the Appellants were continuously using the electricity connection in the capacity of occupiers. However, since the said electricity connection was in the name of Respondent No.5 and on account of an ongoing dispute between the Respondent No.5 and the Appellants, the electricity connection was disconnected by the Respondent authorities at the instance of Respondent No.5 and fresh electricity connection applied by the Appellants was not granted. The Writ Court had only directed for grant of a fresh electricity connection subject to NOC given by Respondent No.5, which he had not given. The Writ Court had only directed for grant of a fresh electricity connection subject to NOC given by Respondent No.5, which he had not given. In that view of the matter, in light of Section 43(3) of the Electricity Act, the legal representatives of Appellants No.1 and Appellant No.2 are statutorily entitled for electricity connection and which the Respondents No.1 to 4 authorities are statutorily obliged to provide, subject to appropriate application made and necessary charges paid by the Appellants. The non-grant of electricity connection would violate the provisions of Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act and the Appellants’ right to access to electricity including their right to life guaranteed in Section 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the action on the part of Respondents No.1 to 4 authorities in non-grant of electricity connection to the Appellants is, therefore, held to be arbitrary. 19. Accordingly, in view of the mandate contained in Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act and further the right to get electricity as held in Chameli Singh (supra) followed in Chandu Khamaru (supra) and K.S. Ninan (supra) and also for the fact that by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court on 30.9.2021, the electricity connection in the subject premises has already been provided, the Appellants may continue with the said electricity connection subject to payment of requisite charges by the Appellants in respect of the said electricity connection. 20. It is, however, made clear that the observations made by us in this Judgment would not come in the way of the jurisdictional Civil Court and the title over the subject premises, if any, shall be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law. 21. In the outcome, the impugned Order dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure A-1) passed in W.P.(C) No.3657 of 2019 is set aside/quashed and the Writ Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No order as to cost(s).