ORDER : G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J. 1. The instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging arbitrary and illegal disconnection of electricity supply to petitioners’ premises bearing Service Connection Nos.K1000703 and J2004676 situated at opposite Bademiya Petrol Pump, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad effected on 21.08.2019 at the instance of the Tahsildar, Nampally mandal, without prior notice or valid reason, in violation of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘2003 Act’) and contrary to the principles of natural justice, thereby infringing the petitioners’ rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner – M. Jayakrishna expired on 09.08.2023. Consequently, the said legal heirs continue to pursue the grievance raised herein. 3. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel representing Smt Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. Factual matrix (in brief) 4. The case of the petitioners is that they are in lawful possession of Survey Nos. 17, 18, and 19 (T.S.Nos.9, 8, and 7) of Thotaguda Village, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad, originally belonging to their grandmother, Smt. Mali Muthamma, and have been using the land for cultivation, nursery, and allied activities for decades. 5. The Respondents, particularly the Revenue Authorities, claim the land to be Government property, labelling the Petitioners as encroachers, giving rise to litigation including W.P.No.1409 of 1991 (protection from dispossession); W.P.No.22007 of 1996 (challenging escheat order) ; C.C.No.554 of 1996; W.P.No.26716 of 2013 (challenging the order under A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘1905 Act’). Significantly, this Court vide common order dated 31.08.2005, has set aside the escheat proceedings, holding that title disputes must be decided by civil Courts and entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. 6. Despite the above and the continuous possession of the petitioners, on 21.08.2019, the Tahsildar, Nampally, along with Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (SPDCL) officials, disconnected electricity without notice or show-cause and had taken away the electricity meters. Although meters were returned, supply remains disconnected. The Petitioners, who regularly paid electricity bills, submitted several representations, including on 13.12.2019, all of which were ignored. The disconnection has severely impacted agricultural operations, causing crop loss and threatening their livelihood. 7. Although meters were returned, supply remains disconnected. The Petitioners, who regularly paid electricity bills, submitted several representations, including on 13.12.2019, all of which were ignored. The disconnection has severely impacted agricultural operations, causing crop loss and threatening their livelihood. 7. In the above backdrop, the present writ petition is filed seeking restoration of electricity supply and protection against interference, pending adjudication of the disputes concerning the subject land. Submissions of the petitioners 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions: i. That Section 43 of the 2003 Act imposes a statutory obligation on a distribution licensee to supply electricity to a consumer upon request. The disconnection of supply in the present case, in the absence of any fault on the part of the petitioners and without adherence to due process, constitutes a clear violation of the statutory mandate. ii. That the disconnection was effected without issuing any notice to the petitioners, without affording an opportunity of hearing, and without following any procedure that would allow the petitioners to be heard. Such action is in blatant contravention of the well-established principle of “audi alteram partem”. iii. That the disconnection appears to have been carried out solely at the behest of the Tahsildar, without any independent application of mind by the electricity authorities. It is submitted that the Tahsildar does not possess any statutory authority to direct the disconnection of a legally existing electricity connection. iv. That the principal issue concerning title to the property is currently pending adjudication before the competent civil Courts. Until such time as the civil Courts pronounce upon the question of ownership, the petitioners’ possession cannot be interfered with summarily, much less through indirect means such as disconnection of an essential service. v. That the electricity constitutes a basic necessity and an essential service. Its arbitrary denial has a direct impact on the petitioners’ right to life and livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and amounts to hostile discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. vi. That this Court vide Common Order dated 31.08.2005, has already held that the subject land cannot be treated as escheat and that any claim to title must be established in a civil suit. The respondents cannot circumvent this judicial direction by taking unilateral action in disregard of the law. vii. vi. That this Court vide Common Order dated 31.08.2005, has already held that the subject land cannot be treated as escheat and that any claim to title must be established in a civil suit. The respondents cannot circumvent this judicial direction by taking unilateral action in disregard of the law. vii. That the statutory remedies available under the 2003 Act for challenging wrongful disconnection are inadequate in the present circumstances and do not operate to bar the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Submissions of the respondents 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing Counsel for SPDCL made the following submissions: i. That the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of Government land. The revenue records, including entries in the Town Survey Land Register (TSLR), conclusively show the subject land as “Sarkari”. The petitioners, therefore, have no lawful claim to possession of the property in question. ii. That in view of the petitioners’ unauthorized occupation, the petitioners cannot claim any right to obtain electricity connections. The request made by the Tahsildar for disconnection of electricity supply was therefore in accordance with law and justified in the public interest. iii. That once the SPDCL was duly informed by the Revenue Authorities that the petitioners’ occupation of the land is unauthorized, the licensee was entitled to disconnect the electricity supply. Such action is necessary to prevent misuse of a public utility and does not constitute a violation of any statutory or constitutional right. iv. That the petitioners had the statutory remedy of approaching the Appellate Authority under the 2003 Act, or instituting a civil suit for restoration of electricity supply. The remedy under law cannot be bypassed by seeking extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. v. That the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act are currently pending against the petitioners, and they have already been found to be encroachers in the said proceedings. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted in the present petition. 10. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged and the material on record. Analysis and findings 11. In the present case, the limited issue that arises for consideration is whether the disconnection of electricity supply to an existing service connection, without notice and without authority of law, is sustainable. 12. 10. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged and the material on record. Analysis and findings 11. In the present case, the limited issue that arises for consideration is whether the disconnection of electricity supply to an existing service connection, without notice and without authority of law, is sustainable. 12. It is pertinent to note that the present grievance arises from arbitrary executive action violating the petitioners’ fundamental rights and statutory provisions. It is settled that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar this Court’s jurisdiction where the action is palpably illegal or in breach of natural justice. The Apex Court in Committee of Management and another v. Vice- Chancellor and others , (2009) 2 SCC 630 by placing reliance on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks , (1998) 8 SCC 1 has held that when an order has been passed by an authority without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice, the superior Courts shall not refuse to exercise their jurisdiction although there exists an alternative remedy 13. It is to be noted that Section 43 of the 2003 Act, casts a statutory obligation on the distribution licensee to supply electricity on request. The circumstances under which supply may be discontinued are expressly provided under Section 56 (disconnection for non-payment) and other applicable regulations. In the present case, none of the statutory conditions for disconnection are attracted. Further, Neither the 2003 Act, nor the regulations framed thereunder confer any authority upon revenue officials to direct disconnection of electricity supply. Any such instruction, whether oral or written, issued by a Tahsildar is dehors the statutory scheme and cannot form the basis for discontinuance of an essential service. 14. It is also to be noted that the 2003 Act does not authorize disconnection merely on the basis of a revenue official labeling the consumer as an “encroacher”. The distribution license is obliged to apply its independent mind and comply with due process, including the issuance of notice and providing an opportunity for hearing. 15. The act of disconnection without prior notice is per se, a violation of the principles of natural justice. Even if the Tahsildar’s claim were accepted as true, the petitioners were entitled to a hearing before any drastic action affecting his livelihood and agricultural activities. 15. The act of disconnection without prior notice is per se, a violation of the principles of natural justice. Even if the Tahsildar’s claim were accepted as true, the petitioners were entitled to a hearing before any drastic action affecting his livelihood and agricultural activities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , (1978) 1 SCC 248 , held that fairness under Article 21 of the Constitution is an essential component of administrative action affecting rights. 16. The respondents’ reliance on TSLR entries to justify disconnection is wholly misplaced. It is well-settled that revenue entries do not confer title in State of A.P. v. Pramila Modi , , 2005 (4) ALD 105 . The very dispute was earlier considered under the Common Order dated 31.08.2005, wherein escheat proceedings were set aside and parties were directed to seek remedy before a competent civil Court. Thus, until a competent Civil Court adjudicates the question of title, the petitioners’ possession cannot be disturbed arbitrarily. Any attempt to dispossess the petitioners indirectly, by disconnecting electricity, is colourable and manifestly unfair. 17. It is pertinent to note that the SPDCL is a statutory licensee under the Electricity Act and not a subordinate authority of the Revenue Department. It is required to act independently and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 Act and the applicable regulations. Blind compliance with the Tahsildar’s oral or written directions, without conducting any independent inquiry or following due process, amounts to an unlawful abdication of statutory responsibility. 18. At the outset, electricity is a basic and essential necessity. Deprivation thereof directly impinges upon the right to life and livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Prem Cottex v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others , (2021) 20 SCC 200 , has held that the electricity boards cannot arbitrarily disconnect electricity supply. Therefore, in the present case, the arbitrary and unilateral disconnection of electricity supply is violative of Article 14, being manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory. The impugned actions of the respondents have a disproportionate and devastating impact on the petitioners’ agricultural livelihood and result in irreparable loss and injury. 19. The Common Order dated 31.08.2005 is binding on all parties. It expressly acknowledged the subsisting title dispute and restrained coercive action without due process of law. The impugned actions of the respondents have a disproportionate and devastating impact on the petitioners’ agricultural livelihood and result in irreparable loss and injury. 19. The Common Order dated 31.08.2005 is binding on all parties. It expressly acknowledged the subsisting title dispute and restrained coercive action without due process of law. The respondents’ attempt to circumvent the said order by resorting to disconnection of electricity supply is a colourable exercise of power and amounts to a clear circumvention of the binding directions issued by this Court. 20. In view of the above stated reasons, this Court holds that the disconnection of electricity supply to the petitioners’ premises on 21.08.2019 was illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, as well as Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, with the following directions: (i) The respondent Nos.4 to 6 (SPDCL authorities) shall forthwith restore the electricity supply to Service Connection Nos.K1000703 and J2004676 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to payment of any outstanding dues. (ii) The respondents shall not disconnect the electricity supply to the petitioners’ premises in future except in strict compliance with the due process of law as contemplated under the Electricity Act, 2003, including issuance of prior notice and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. (iii) The Tahsildar, Nampally, or any other revenue authority shall not interfere with the electricity supply to the petitioners’ premises unless and until a competent civil Court adjudicates the question of title in favour of the Government and executable orders for eviction are obtained in accordance with law. (iv) The dispute relating to title over the land situated in Survey Nos.17, 18 and 19 is left open to be adjudicated in appropriate civil proceedings. It is made clear that this order shall not prejudice the rights and contentions of either party in such proceedings. (v) The petitioners shall continue to pay electricity charges regularly. In the event of default, the SPDCL authorities shall be at liberty to initiate action in accordance with Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.