The Tripura High Court has expressed displeasure over the role of the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) in disconnecting electricity connections to three flats at Binayak Apartment Complex in Banamalipur amid a property dispute.

The court directed TSECL to immediately restore electricity connections to the three flats and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 in each of three separate writ petitions filed by the affected flat owners.

Justice T. Amarnath Goud passed the directions while hearing the petitions filed by the flat owners, who alleged that their electricity connections were disconnected despite regularly paying their power bills.

The petitioners alleged that the disconnections were made in connection with an ongoing dispute involving the developer and the landowner, identified as minister Pranjit Singh Roy. They informed the court that the dispute was already pending before civil and consumer forums.

Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocates Purushottam Roy Barman and Debaloy Bhattacharya, along with advocates Samarjit Bhattacharya, Kaushik Nath, Dipjyoti Pal and Samar Das, argued that TSECL had disconnected the legally sanctioned electricity connections without following due legal procedure and allegedly under pressure.

They submitted that the disconnection had deprived the residents of essential services despite there being no allegation that the flat owners had defaulted on their electricity bills.

The High Court directed TSECL to restore the power connections forthwith. The electricity corporation was also asked to explain the circumstances and grounds on which the connections were disconnected.

The imposition of a Rs 2,000 fine in each of the three writ petitions reflects the court's displeasure with the manner in which the electricity connections were dealt with, legal sources said.

The order is also likely to serve as a caution to electricity authorities against disconnecting legally valid power connections merely because of disputes relating to property ownership, developers or landowners.

The case has once again brought into focus the issue of essential services in disputes involving developers, landowners and flat buyers. The court's intervention underscores the need to ensure that ongoing property disputes do not result in lawful residents being deprived of basic and essential services.