The Karnataka High Court has clarified that utility providers cannot act on unilateral representations from disputing factions within a wakf management body to disconnect essential services. This ruling reinforces the principle that service continuity must be protected where lawful tenancy and payment records exist, regardless of internal governance conflicts.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, KGN Saw Mill, operated through its proprietor Hussain Patel, leased a property bearing Survey No. 379 on Jewargi Road, Shahabad Taluka, Kalaburagi district, from Respondent No. 3, the Intezami Committee Jamia Masjid (Sunni), a wakf entity. The petitioner established a saw mill on the premises and obtained a valid license from the Karnataka Forest Department dated 11.02.2019, valid until 31.03.2023, with periodic renewals thereafter. The petitioner paid rent regularly and maintained all statutory compliance.
Key Facts
- The property is owned by Respondent No. 3, a wakf institution under the Karnataka Wakf Act
- The petitioner holds Annexure-A: Forest Department Saw Mill License (valid 11.02.2019 to 31.03.2023, renewed)
- Annexure-B: No Objection Certificate issued by Respondent No. 3 permitting operation of the saw mill
- Annexure-D: Letter dated 06.02.2021 from Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 4 (GESCOM) confirming the lease and regular payment of rent
- Annexure-C: Representation dated 21.01.2021 by Respondent No. 2 (District Wakf Officer) requesting disconnection of electricity, based on an internal dispute within Respondent No. 3’s committee
- Annexure-E: Notice dated 23.06.2021 issued by Respondent No. 4 (GESCOM) demanding production of tenancy documents and subsequently disconnecting electricity supply under RRSP No. 18018
- The petitioner had no outstanding electricity dues at the time of disconnection
Procedural History
- 21.01.2021: Respondent No. 2 submits representation to Respondent No. 4 seeking disconnection of electricity
- 06.02.2021: Respondent No. 3 issues Annexure-D confirming lease and regular rent payment
- 23.06.2021: Respondent No. 4 issues Annexure-E notice and disconnects electricity
- 06.08.2021: High Court passes interim order directing restoration of electricity upon clearance of arrears
- Before 17.03.2026: Petitioner clears all arrears; electricity supply is restored
- 17.03.2026: Final hearing before the Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that the disconnection was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 21 (right to livelihood) and Article 14 (equality). Emphasized that Annexure-D from the lawful owner (Respondent No. 3) was sufficient proof of tenancy, and Respondent No. 4 had no authority to adjudicate internal wakf disputes.
Respondent No. 4 (GESCOM): Contended that the disconnection was based on a formal representation from Respondent No. 2, a statutory authority under the Wakf Act, and that due diligence required verification of tenancy documents.
Respondent No. 2 (District Wakf Officer): Did not file a detailed counter, but relied on the assertion that the property was under dispute and disconnection was a precautionary measure.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of Annexure-C (representation dated 21.01.2021) and Annexure-E (disconnection notice dated 23.06.2021)
- A direction to Respondent No. 4 not to disconnect electricity without conclusive proof of unlawful tenancy
- Costs and any other relief deemed fit
The Legal Issue
Can a utility provider lawfully disconnect electricity supply based solely on a representation from a wakf administrative officer, when the lawful owner of the property has confirmed the tenancy and rent payment, and no court has adjudicated the underlying dispute?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the principle that utility services are essential for livelihood and cannot be terminated on the basis of an inter se dispute between parties claiming authority over a property. Cited State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar to argue that administrative action must be based on objective evidence, not subjective claims. Emphasized that Annexure-D from Respondent No. 3, the registered wakf owner, constituted prima facie proof of lawful tenancy. Argued that Respondent No. 4, as a public utility, had no adjudicatory function and acted ultra vires by accepting a disputed representation as grounds for disconnection.
For the Respondent
Respondent No. 4 contended that it acted in good faith upon receiving a formal communication from Respondent No. 2, a statutory authority under the Karnataka Wakf Act, and that it was entitled to seek verification of tenancy documents before continuing supply. However, no statutory provision was cited to support the claim that a Wakf Officer has authority to direct disconnection of electricity.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the dispute and the role of each respondent. It noted that Respondent No. 3, the registered owner of the wakf property, had unequivocally confirmed the lease in writing to Respondent No. 4. The Court held that a public utility cannot act as a dispute resolver between competing claimants to property ownership.
"The respondent No.4, being a public utility provider, is not vested with the authority to adjudicate title disputes or internal conflicts within a wakf committee. Its duty is to ensure continuity of service upon production of lawful tenancy and payment records, not to investigate the legitimacy of competing claims."
The Court observed that the representation by Respondent No. 2 was merely an allegation, unsupported by any court order, decree, or official determination of title. The fact that Respondent No. 3 had itself confirmed the lease and payment of rent rendered the disconnection notice legally unsustainable.
The Court further noted that the interim order of 06.08.2021, which led to restoration of supply upon clearance of arrears, was a recognition of the petitioner’s lawful possession. The subsequent disconnection based on the same disputed representation was therefore arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
The Court rejected the argument that Respondent No. 2’s status as a Wakf Officer conferred any quasi-judicial power to direct disconnection. No provision under the Karnataka Wakf Act or the Electricity Act permits such action.
The Verdict
The writ petition is partly allowed. The notice dated 23.06.2021 (Annexure-E) issued by Respondent No. 4 is quashed. The Court directs Respondent No. 4 not to disconnect electricity supply to the petitioner’s saw mill on the basis of any future representation arising from internal disputes within Respondent No. 3’s committee, unless a competent court has adjudicated the title or tenancy. The petitioner’s electricity supply remains restored as per the interim order. No costs are awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Utility Providers Cannot Act as Arbiters of Property Disputes
- Practitioners must argue that disconnection of essential services based on unadjudicated claims violates Article 14 and Article 21
- Public utilities must rely on objective documentation (lease, rent receipts, ownership proof) and not on contested representations
- Any attempt to use administrative pressure from third parties to cut off services is legally untenable
Tenancy Proof Trumps Administrative Allegations
- A written confirmation of lease and rent payment from the registered owner is sufficient for service continuity
- Internal committee disputes within wakf institutions do not invalidate lawful tenancy
- Practitioners should immediately file writ petitions upon disconnection where such documentation exists
Procedural Due Process Is Mandatory
- Before disconnecting services, utilities must provide notice and opportunity to be heard
- No utility can act on ex parte representations without verifying the legitimacy of the claimant’s authority
- This judgment sets a precedent for similar cases involving electricity, water, or telecom disconnections in disputed properties
