Distribution Licensee Cannot Permanently Reject Electricity Connection Application Without Assigning Reasons, Says Court
Amaravati, June 22: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that electricity is a basic necessity and forms an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, while setting aside the rejection of a consumer’s application for a new electricity service connection.
Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam passed the order in a writ petition filed by Kadagala Srinivas Rao, who had challenged the action of the Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited (APEPDCL) in permanently rejecting his application for a Category-II electricity service connection without assigning any reasons.
The petitioner had applied for a new electricity connection on 20.09.2025 for premises situated at Parampeta Village, Srikakulam District, where he intended to start a small flour mill for earning his livelihood. He submitted that he had obtained the necessary No-Objection Certificate from the Gram Panchayat and had paid the prescribed charges. However, his application status was later shown as “Permanently Rejected” on the online portal without any reason being communicated.
Petitioner Alleged Violation Of Livelihood Rights
The petitioner contended that denial of electricity supply prevented him from carrying on his proposed flour mill business and directly affected his livelihood. It was argued that the action of the distribution company was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioner relied upon Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, Clause 5.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply and the applicable APERC regulations to submit that a distribution licensee is under a statutory duty to provide electricity supply to an owner or occupier of premises within the prescribed time once the required formalities are completed.
It was further submitted that if there was any deficiency in the application, the authorities were required to inform the applicant, give reasons and provide an opportunity to rectify the defects. Instead, the application was permanently rejected without notice, hearing or reasoned order.
APEPDCL Cited Existing Disconnected Connection
The distribution company did not file a counter affidavit despite opportunity. However, its counsel submitted that when officials inspected the premises, they found that an earlier electricity service connection existed in the name of the petitioner’s wife, which had been disconnected due to non-payment of charges.
It was argued that if the petitioner cleared the requisite dues and fulfilled statutory requirements, the authorities would consider providing the electricity connection.
The petitioner disputed this stand and submitted that the earlier service connection was not in his name. He also contended that the said connection had already been removed by the authorities pursuant to a notice dated 12.07.2024 and that the respondents could not justify rejection of his fresh application on grounds never stated at the time of rejection.
Court Discusses Importance Of Electricity
The High Court observed that electricity is essential for daily life and is closely connected with the exercise of fundamental rights. The Court noted that in modern society, access to electricity is necessary for homes, education, healthcare, communication, livelihood and overall development.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court observed that the right to shelter includes access to basic civic amenities such as electricity, water, sanitation and other infrastructure necessary for dignified living.
The Court also relied upon Dilip v. Satish, wherein the Supreme Court recognised electricity as a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived.
Section 43 Imposes Mandatory Duty On Distribution Licensee
The Court examined Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and held that a distribution licensee is under a statutory obligation to supply electricity to the owner or occupier of premises within one month of receiving a complete application, subject to fulfilment of statutory requirements.
The Court also referred to the APERC framework and General Terms and Conditions of Supply, which require the distribution company to verify the application, acknowledge receipt and process applications for new supply in accordance with prescribed timelines.
The Court noted that under the APERC Standards of Performance, new connections in rural areas are required to be released within 15 days where supply is feasible from the existing network, upon receipt of complete application and prescribed charges.
Rejection Without Reasons Violates Natural Justice
The Court found that the petitioner had placed on record the application for electricity connection, the No-Objection Certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat and the house tax receipt showing his connection with the premises. These documents indicated that he had complied with the basic requirements for seeking a new service connection.
The Court further observed that the respondents did not deny that the application was permanently rejected through the online portal. However, no reason was assigned for such rejection.
The High Court held that even if the application was defective or incomplete, the authorities were duty-bound to inform the petitioner of the specific reasons for rejection. Merely showing the status as “Permanently Rejected” without reasons was held to be illegal and contrary to principles of natural justice.
Relying upon Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, the Court reiterated that an administrative order must stand or fall on the reasons contained in it and cannot later be justified by fresh reasons supplied during court proceedings.
Right To Know Reasons Is A Basic Right
The Court also referred to Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan and emphasized that recording reasons is an essential part of fair decision-making. The Court observed that reasons prevent arbitrariness, enable judicial review and maintain public confidence in administrative action.
It held that the right to know reasons for a decision adversely affecting a person is a basic right, whether the decision is judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative.
Directions Issued
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court set aside the action of APEPDCL in permanently rejecting the petitioner’s application dated 20.09.2025 for grant of a new electricity connection.
The Court directed the distribution company to process the petitioner’s application afresh, after collecting charges if any, strictly in accordance with Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and applicable rules, within two weeks from receipt of the order.
The Court also issued a broader direction to the State Energy Department to instruct all distribution licensees in Andhra Pradesh to submit comprehensive reports every three months regarding applications for new service connections, processing time and final outcome. The State was directed to review such reports and issue appropriate directions or guidelines to ensure compliance with statutory obligations.
Conclusion
The ruling reinforces that electricity supply cannot be denied or delayed in an arbitrary manner. While distribution licensees may insist upon compliance with statutory conditions and payment of lawful dues, they cannot permanently reject applications without reasons, notice or opportunity to rectify deficiencies.
The judgment also highlights the wider constitutional significance of electricity access, particularly for persons seeking supply for livelihood and development in rural areas.