ORDER: PULLA KARTHIK, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “… declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.4 in rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 27.12.2024 for release of new electricity connection under Industrial Category vide Letter bearing Lr. No. ADE/OP/BLNR-SD XVI/ D.No.1055/2024-25, dated 24.01.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to Article 14, 19 and 21 A of the Constitution of India and may be pleased to set aside the rejection letter dated 24.01.2025 in the interest of justice.” 2) Heard Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Energy for respondent No.1, Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, and learned Government Pleader for Industries & Commerce for respondent No.5. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh has established a Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited, Balanagar, in the land admeasuring Acs.47-00 guntas and the said land was allotted to the Cooperative Industrial Estate Unit Holder Association. Ever since the allotment, the members of the said Association are in possession and are carrying on the industrial/manufacturing activities. Further, some of the original allottees have leased out different portions of the land to some individuals who are also carrying on industrial activities. Likewise, petitioner has taken on lease a portion of industrial area admeasuring 300 sq. mtrs. allotted to one Mr. D. Sudershan and the service connection was being utilized by all the persons in common. In the said land, petitioner has established a small scale industry in the name of M/s.Umark Apparels and the said industry is registered under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) on 09.10.2013 and accordingly petitioner has been manufacturing various products such as tableware, kitchenware, furniture as per the demand in the market. Learned counsel has further stated that the Cooperative Industrial Estate has been established in the year 1961 and since then industries are functioning in the entire industrial area. Further, the original allottees and the tenants are repeatedly requesting the government to regularize the land to enable the lease holders to utilize the regular land for industrial purpose by erecting industrial sheds, etc. Further, vide Memo dated 28.02.2019, the Government of Telangana, Industries and Commerce Department, directed to maintain status quo in respect of the subject land. Further, the original allottees and the tenants are repeatedly requesting the government to regularize the land to enable the lease holders to utilize the regular land for industrial purpose by erecting industrial sheds, etc. Further, vide Memo dated 28.02.2019, the Government of Telangana, Industries and Commerce Department, directed to maintain status quo in respect of the subject land. It is further contended that the GHMC has served Occupier Notice dated 17.09.2020 issued under Section 276 of the HMC Act, 1955, on the petitioner to pay the outstanding taxes in respect of the subject premises i.e. H.No.6-9-10/NR, Plot No.A-9, CIE-Balanagar, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, and in compliance thereof, petitioner has paid Rs.10,600/- towards its share in municipal taxes and thereafter, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 30.09.2022 to respondent No.5 to regularize the land which is in its possession. Vide letter dated 26.10.2022, petitioner was informed to pay an amount of Rs.1,81,55,280/- for conversion of the said land and submit proof thereof. Further, as the amounts demanded are disproportionate to the incomes generated by small scale industries, Association filed W.P. No.2811 of 2023 and tenants have filed W.P. Nos.27094 and 26096 of 2023 and negotiations of lease holders/sub lease holders with Government are in progress. Learned counsel has further submitted that in pursuance to the demand notice dated 26.10.2022 and to show bonafides, petitioner paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.12.2022 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 04.04.2023. Learned counsel has submitted that as the petitioner has no electricity at present to the subject premises, it is unable to undertake manufacturing activities. As such, petitioner submitted an online application on 27.12.2024 along with Indemnity Bond for releasing the new service connection. However, vide letter dated 24.01.2025, respondent No.4 has rejected the application of the petitioner for not uploading the ownership documents and that the subject premises is a disputed land and three writ petitions are pending. 3.1) Learned counsel has contended that in W.P.No.2811 of 2023 filed by CIE Phase-I Association questioning the Memo dated 29.08.2022 fixing the rate of conversion into freehold by categorizing the units into two segments i.e. (a) original allottees and (b) others, this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 05.06.2023 has set aside the Memo dated 29.08.2022 and directed the respondents to reconsider the issue. Learned counsel has further contended that respondent No.5 had recognized and confirmed the possession of the petitioner as a leaseholder and issued demand notice dated 26.10.2022. Learned counsel has further contended that respondent No.5 had recognized and confirmed the possession of the petitioner as a leaseholder and issued demand notice dated 26.10.2022. Therefore, the petitioner being the occupier of the subject premises is entitled for service connection in terms of Section 43 of the Indian Electricity Act , 2003. It is further contended that as per clause 5.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply on an application by the owner or the occupier of the premises located in its area of supply, the Power Company shall give supply electricity to such premises in accordance with Section 43 of the Indian Electricity Act , 2003. The petitioner being the occupier of the premises is entitled for service connection and the right of the petitioner therefor falls under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner for providing electricity service connection on the ground that certain writ petitions are pending, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently it is prayed to set aside the impugned rejection order dated 24.01.2025. Reliance has been placed on Abhimanyu Mazumdar v. Superintending Engineer , [2011 SCC OnLine Cal 362] ; Manishi Malty v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 4802 Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549 , Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2023) 17 SCC 187 , Krishena Kumar v. Union of India , [ (1990) 4 SCC 207 ] ; and Haryana Wakf Board v. State of Haryana , [(2019) 3 SCC 382] 4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that the petitioner herein, which claims to be registered under MSME and taken a portion of the land in the Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited, Balanagar, and running an Industry since 2013, had filed an application on 27.12.2024 for grant of electricity service connection under Industrial Category and the same was rejected by the respondent Company vide impugned rejection order dated 24.01.2025 on the ground that petitioner did not upload the ownership documents, that the subject premises are located in disputed land and that three writ petitions are pending. Learned Standing Counsel has contended that as per clause 5.2.2 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply, to claim electricity power connection, it is mandatory to submit the ownership documents and in case of occupant of the premises, an Indemnity from the owner of the property undertaking to indemnify the respondents the consumption charges of the tenant has to be furnished. In the instant case, as the petitioner did not possess a valid lease deed in its favour, it cannot claim electricity service connection, as a matter of right. Further, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.C. Ninnan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 (14) SCC 431 , duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the Indian Electricity Act is not absolute and is subject to such charges and compliances stipulated by the Distribution Licensees as part of the application. In the present case, as the petitioner had not complied the terms and conditions of supply, power supply cannot be given to the petitioner, as a matter of right, and therefore the respondents are justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the record. 6) As can be seen from the record, the petitioner Firm, which is registered under MSME, has taken a portion of the Industry in Bala Nagar and running an industry since 2013. It made an application on 27.12.2024 for grant of electricity power connection under Industrial Category and the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 24.01.2025 on the ground that petitioner did not upload the ownership documents, the subject premises are located in disputed land, and certain writ petitions are pending. 7) Before going into the merits of the matter, this Court deems it apt to refer relevant portion of General Terms and Conditions for Supply. 5.1 Company’s Duty to Supply The Company shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any Premises, located in his area of supply, give supply of electricity to such Premises in accordance with Section 43 of the Act and the APERC *Licensees’ duty for supply of electricity on request) Regulation, 2004 (No.3 of 2004) as well as the APERC (Licensees’ Standards of Performance) Regulation, 2004 (No.7 of 2004). The applicant must however ensure compliance with the procedure specified in the GTCS. 5.2.3 An applicant who is not the owner of the premises he occupies and intending to avail of supply shall submit an Indemnity Bond drawn by the owner of the premises in favour of the company whereby the power of the premises undertakes to indemnify the company for any loss caused to the company by the applicant (who is the tenant/occupant of the Premises) arising out of the release of service to the tenant/occupant. Otherwise he shall be required to pay three times the normal security deposit apart from providing proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises.” 8) From the above, it is clear that the Rule mandates either owner or occupier of the premises to make an application seeking electricity connection, subject to payment of charges and security. As the petitioner herein is claiming to be an occupier, in terms of clause 5.2.3, it is required to pay three times normal security deposit apart from providing proof of its being in lawful occupation of the premises. Thus, the Rule requires occupation of the premises by the applicant. In the case on hand, as evident from the record, more particularly, the Occupier Notice dated 17.09.2020 issued under Section 276 of the H.M.C. Act , 1955, by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Moosapet, the petitioner is in occupation of the subject premises. Further, the petitioner has already submitted the Indemnity Bond as required under clause 5.2.3. Therefore, rejection of application of the petitioner on the ground that ownership documents are not uploaded is not sustainable under the law. 9) In this backdrop, this Court apt to state that in Chameli Singh’s case (referred supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 8 held as under: “In any organised society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to live guaranteed in any civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilized society. All human rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to live guaranteed in any civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilized society. All civil, political, social and cultural rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Convention or under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without these basic human rights. Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not a mere protection of his life and limb. It is home where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. 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 civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over one’s head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being. Right to shelter when used as an essential requisite to the right to live should be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental right. As is enjoined in the Directive Principles, the State should be deemed to be under an obligation to secure it for its citizens, of course subject to its economic budgeting. In a democratic society as a member of the organised civic community one should have permanent shelter so as to physically, mentally and intellectually equip oneself to improve his excellence as a useful citizen as enjoined in the Fundamental Duties and to be a useful citizen and equal participant in democracy. The ultimate object of making a man equipped with a right to dignity of person and equality of status is to enable him to develop himself into a cultured being. Want of decent residence, therefore, frustrates the very object of the constitutional animation of right to equality, economic justice, fundamental right to residence, dignity of person and right to live itself. Want of decent residence, therefore, frustrates the very object of the constitutional animation of right to equality, economic justice, fundamental right to residence, dignity of person and right to live itself. To bring the Dalits and Tribes into the mainstream of national life, providing these facilities and opportunities to them is the duty of the State as fundamental to their basic human and constitutional rights.” 10) Similarly, in Abhimanyu Muzumdar’s case (referred supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at para 16, has held as under: “The judgment in the case of Abhumanyu (supra) which permitted the occupiers to enjoy the electricity was in fact a fulfillment of the derived fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The scope of which in very recent time through judicial pronouncements have been immensely widened. The positive change in the realm of law has taken place over a long period of time and today the Court cannot put a seal of approval on the objections raised by an unwilling father to the electric connection to be provided to his son. If right of residence comes within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and a citizen has a right to reside and settle in any portion of India as provided under Article 19 (1) (e) of the Constitution, he has equally a right to enjoy the property in a most meaningful manner.” 11) In view of the above settled principle of law and for the reasons narrated at preceding para No.8, above, the impugned rejection order dated 24.01.2025 is liable to be set aside. 12) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned rejection order vide letter No.ADE/OP/BLNR-SD XVI/D.No.1055/ 2024-25, dated 24.01.2025, is set aside. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.