Anuj Kumar Agarwal v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors

1. Petitioner states to be a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Delhi High Court Bar Association and is a practising Advocate in both the Courts. He claims to be a well known cyber and digital techno legal expert. Petitioner claims to have purchased Flat No. T-8/1301, Supreme Towers, Sector 99, Noida, U.P. on 26th May 2024 from one Dr. ATM Venkat Raghavan. He submits that he has been residing in the aforesaid premises since 1st June 2024 after possession was handed over to the petitioner by the seller.

2. Petitioner states that the respondent no.2 is a cooperative society having right to transfer the ownership and issue a share certificate to any buyer who should also be a member of Supreme Court Bar Association as also of respondent no.2. Petitioner claims that on 29th May 2024, he deposited an amount of Rs.2,72,000/- into the account of respondent no.3/Association. He claims that the said amount was deposited on account of arrears of Rs.1,56,000/- and had paid Rs.1,15,000/- advance towards electricity and maintenance charges.

3. Mr. Vipul Ganda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after getting the possession, the petitioner is carrying out repair and renovation work. He submits that the petitioner performs religious puja every morning and uses the premises for sleeping overnight. Learned counsel submits that suddenly and without any notice on 22nd July 2024, the electricity and water connection to the said premises was disconnected arbitrarily. He submits that the right to electricity and water connection is well settled by a catena of judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court. In any case, he also submits that no civil society can countenance disconnection of electricity and water which are the basic amenities available to the citizens of the Country. He states that the disconnection being without any notice and arbitrary, this Court may pass directions for reconnection of the electricity and water.

4. Per Contra, Mr. Deepak Tyagi learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submits that the Association does not recognize the petitioner as a legal and valid purchaser of the premises and whatever amounts have been deposited, are kept now in a suspense account.

5. He also submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction. He submits that the respondent no.3 Association is registered in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh and the property of the Association, that is the Supreme Towers, is itself located in Sector 99, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Even if this Court were to go by the case of the petitioner, the subject property and the disconnection of electricity and water connection has also been carried out beyond a territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, on this short submission, Mr. Deepak Tyagi learned counsel contends that no order much less an interim order can or should be passed by this Court.

6. Mr. Deepak Tyagi learned counsel for respondent no.3 also vehemently opposes the submission that the petitioner is residing in the subject premises. He states that the petitioner is residing in another society in Noida itself and as such there is no bonafide requirement much less any urgency in the prayer for reconnection of electricity and water connection.

7. Mr. Satish Pandey, learned counsel claiming to appear on behalf of respondent no.2, submits that he has no objection in case any interim orders as prayed for are passed.

8. Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel also claims to be appearing on behalf of respondent no.2. He objects to the relief as sought.

9. We have heard the preliminary arguments addressed on behalf of petitioner as also respondent no.3. At the moment, this Court is yet to hear the learned counsel for the parties on the issue of jurisdiction and other facts and as such is restricting its observations only to the interim prayer as sought.

10. We have seen the Statement of Account at page 31 and 32 of the paper book, which is an account statement maintained by the respondent no.3. The said statement of account reflects a deposit of Rs.2,72,000/- on 31st May, 2024. This, prima facie, appears to be in alignment with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that a cheque bearing NO. 98196 for the same sum was deposited on 29th May 2024.

11. From the argument of learned counsel for the parties, it appears to this Court that the respondent no.3 is objecting tooth and nail the assertion of the petitioner being a bonafide purchaser and owner of the subject premises. It is on that count that the opposition to reconnection of the disconnected electricity and water connection is made.

12. As of now, we are not considering the matter on facts or on the issue of jurisdiction of this Court. For such purpose, we would require the counter affidavits of the respondents on record. The right of a person for water and electricity connection cannot be underscored. It is apparent that the right to the basic amenities of life, would be a part of fundamental right of freedom to life and liberty. No citizen of the Country can be expected to live a life without dignity and devoid of basic necessities. Electricity and water, today, are essential to the very existence of the citizens.

13. In that view of the matter, awaiting the counter affidavits to be filed by the respondents, we direct the respondent no.3 Association to forthwith reconnect the water and electricity connection to the premises. It is made clear that we have not entered into the issue of whether the petitioner is or is not the bonafide purchaser of the premises. It is also made clear that this order shall not grant any equity to the petitioner. The present order is purely as a temporary measure, till we decide the objections.

14. In that view of the matter, we issue notice to the respondents.

15. Mr. Satish Pandey, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2 and Mr. Deepak Tyagi, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.3. They pray for and are granted two weeks time to file the counter affidavit. Rejoinder thereto before the next date of hearing. It is reiterated that the water and electricity connection be reconnected forthwith by respondent no.3 till further orders.