One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.

Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.

Mr.X, residing in a rented apartment on the fourth floor of ABC Housing Society in City A, purchased an electric two-wheeler requiring a 16A charging socket. Initially, Mr.Y, the society treasurer, welcomed the decision and assured full cooperation for EV charging facilities. However, Mr.Z, the chairman, and other committee members later reversed their stance, creating obstacles for the installation of the charging point. The society management cited various concerns including electrical load, safety issues, and potential misuse by other residents. Mr.X faced difficulties as his vehicle’s battery was non-removable, making charging at external stations impractical. The committee’s sudden change of position after initial approval created legal complications regarding the resident’s right to use eco-friendly transportation and the society’s obligations under environmental protection laws.

Advice in Such Cases

Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation to come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think.

• Document all communications with the society committee including initial approval from the treasurer
• Review your tenancy agreement and society bylaws for any clauses related to electrical installations
• Gather evidence of the society’s environmental commitments and any previous approvals for similar installations
• Explore mediation options through housing regulatory authorities before pursuing legal action

Applicable Sections of Law

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 351 deals with criminal intimidation if the committee uses threats. Section 352 covers assault if any physical confrontation occurs during disputes. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Section 173 provides procedures for filing complaints against harassment. Additionally, BNS Section 318 addresses wrongful restraint if the committee prevents legitimate use of common facilities. Environmental protection laws also support EV adoption, making unreasonable denial potentially actionable under relevant consumer protection and environmental statutes governing housing societies.

If You Are the Complainant

• File a formal written complaint to the society’s managing committee with supporting documents
• Approach the local housing regulatory authority or cooperative society registrar for mediation
• Submit an application under the Right to Information Act to obtain society’s electrical load capacity details
• Consider filing a consumer complaint if charging facility was promised during tenancy agreement
• Gather support from other EV-owning residents to present a collective case

If You Are the Victim

• Maintain detailed records of all verbal and written communications regarding the charging facility denial
• Document any financial losses incurred due to inability to charge your EV at home
• Report harassment or intimidation by committee members to local police if it escalates
• Seek alternative temporary charging arrangements while pursuing legal remedies
• Connect with EV owner groups and environmental organizations for support and advocacy

How the Police Behave in Such Cases

Police typically treat these matters as civil disputes initially and may recommend approaching housing authorities first. They intervene when criminal intimidation, assault, or harassment occurs. Officers often suggest mediation through local administration before filing FIRs. However, if committee members engage in threatening behavior or wrongful restraint, police are obligated to register complaints under relevant BNS sections. Documentation of threats or physical confrontation strengthens the case for police intervention.

FAQs People Normally Have

Can a society legally deny EV charging facilities? Societies cannot unreasonably deny EV charging if proper safety protocols are followed and electrical capacity permits.

Is initial verbal approval legally binding? Verbal approvals create legitimate expectations, though written permissions are stronger legally.

What if electrical load is genuinely insufficient? Society must provide technical proof and explore load enhancement options before denial.

Can tenants install charging points independently? Tenant installations require both landlord and society approval for common area electrical connections.

What Evidence Is Required?

• Written or recorded communications between resident and society committee members
• Initial approval documentation from treasurer or other authorized officials
• Technical specifications of the EV charging requirements and safety certifications
• Society’s electrical load capacity reports and previous electrical installation approvals
• Financial records showing losses due to external charging arrangements
• Witness statements from other residents who heard verbal approvals
• Photographs or videos of any confrontational incidents during disputes

How Long Will the Investigation Take?

Housing authority mediation typically takes 2-3 months for resolution. Police complaints, if criminal elements exist, may take 6-12 months for investigation completion. Consumer forum cases generally resolve within 3-6 months. Civil court proceedings can extend 1-3 years depending on complexity. Quick resolution is often possible through effective legal intervention and proper documentation of the society’s unreasonable denial of legitimate EV charging rights.

Advocate Sudhir Rao, Supreme Court of India