Utility Disconnection Writ in Bangladesh 2026: Electricity, Gas, Water and BERC

Utility disconnection writ: the legal framework in 2026

A utility disconnection writ is the constitutional challenge a household, factory or commercial occupier brings when an electricity, gas or water supplier cuts off supply without lawful authority. For a factory, a severed gas line can halt production within hours; for a household, the loss of electricity or water is immediate and acute. Article 102 lets the High Court Division review the conduct of public utilities, but the statutes that govern them contain strong limits on what courts may order, and the case law draws a firm line between statutory wrongs and ordinary billing disputes.

This guide explains the disconnection powers under the Electricity Act 2018, the Bangladesh Gas Act 2010 and the Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Act 1996, the complaint and dispute route before the Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission, the 2026 amendments affecting tariffs and gas offences, the leading cases on when a writ lies against a utility, and the practical steps that give a challenge its best chance.

Summary: Utilities in Bangladesh may disconnect for unpaid bills, illegal use and certain breaches, but only by following the procedure the law prescribes. Billing and supply disputes go first to the supplier's complaint centre and then to the Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission. A writ is reserved for disconnections that lack any statutory basis, ignore mandatory procedure or are plainly arbitrary, and the courts will not use it to resolve disputed facts.

Key point: Section 18(2) of the Electricity Act 2018 provides that where a licensee disconnects a consumer under section 18(1) for non-payment or illegal use, no court may order the licensee to reconnect. A challenge must therefore show that the disconnection was not a lawful exercise of that power at all.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

Utility disconnection writ: the legal framework in 2026

Electricity and gas distribution in Bangladesh is carried out by licensees regulated by the Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission under the Energy Regulatory Commission Act 2003. Water and sewerage in the major cities is run by Water Supply and Sewerage Authorities under the 1996 Act. Most of these bodies are statutory authorities or state-owned companies, so their actions can be reviewed under Article 102 where they act under statutory powers.

The Electricity Act 2018 links the two regimes directly. It defines the Commission and the Commission Act by reference to the 2003 Act and provides in section 53 that the Commission Act applies to the resolution of disputes arising from the supply or use of electricity.[1] Any utility disconnection writ concerning power must therefore take account of the Commission's role. For background on the energy regulatory regime, see our guide to energy law in Bangladesh.

Electricity disconnection under the Electricity Act 2018

The Electricity Act 2018 sets out several distinct disconnection powers, each with its own conditions.[1]

• Section 17(4): where a consumer fails to keep the meter properly, the distribution licensee may disconnect following the prescribed procedure and take legal action.
• Section 18(1): where a consumer fails to pay the electricity bill, or a person uses electricity illegally, the licensee may disconnect following the prescribed procedure.
• Section 19(3): supply may be disconnected where a person obstructs authorised entry to inspect lines and fittings, which must take place at a reasonable time and with notice to the owner or occupier.
• Section 48(1): on learning of electricity theft, the licensee must disconnect immediately and file a written complaint with the competent court within seven working days.

Section 17(5) adds an evidential presumption that, unless the contrary is proved, the meter register and the data stored in the meter correctly record consumption.[1] A consumer disputing a bill therefore carries the burden of showing that the meter was faulty or misread.

The bar on court-ordered reconnection

The most important provision for any utility disconnection writ is section 18(2). Where a consumer's supply is disconnected under section 18(1), no court may order the licensee to reconnect.[1] Section 20 then requires the licensee to reconnect once the prescribed conditions are met, and section 18(3) makes the responsible employee liable where a bill remains unpaid through negligence in billing or collection.[1]

In our view, the bar applies only to a disconnection that is genuinely made under section 18(1): for non-payment or illegal use, and following the prescribed procedure. A disconnection for a reason the statute does not recognise, without the required notice or procedure, or in bad faith, is not protected by section 18(2), and the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 102 remains available to test it. The petition must make that case squarely rather than simply asking for reconnection.

Theft cases

Theft allegations follow a separate track. Under section 48(1), a first-time accused consumer may avoid prosecution by paying three times the value of the electricity stolen, together with the meter price and disconnection and reconnection fees, and the licensee may then reconnect within 48 hours of payment. Section 48(2) bars a person using electricity illegally from bringing any civil or criminal case about action taken under the Act.[1]

Gas disconnection and the 2026 amendments

The Bangladesh Gas Act 2010 approaches illegal gas use mainly through offences. Section 10(1) makes it an offence for domestic, commercial, industrial, captive power, CNG, tea garden, power and fertiliser consumers to bypass meters, tamper with meters, use gas illegally from the supply line, re-set regulators to draw gas at higher pressure, or exceed approved burners or load. It also makes it an offence to use gas without authorisation after the distributor has disconnected the line for breach of a connection condition.[5]

The Bangladesh Gas (Amendment) Act 2026, Act No 52 of 2026, published on 10 April 2026, tightened this regime. It extended the offence to illegal use with the help or abetment of a contractor or anyone else, made owners of the land, building or flat, distribution company staff and contractors who assist or abet liable, replaced the penalties with a graded scale by consumer class, and required convicted contractors to be blacklisted.[6] For industrial, captive power, CNG and tea garden consumers, a first offence now carries up to one year's imprisonment or a fine of up to Tk 2 lakh, or both.[6]

Gas disconnections under contract

Many gas disconnections and billing demands rest on the supply agreement rather than a statutory power, and that distinction is decisive. In Marine Vegetable Oil Ltd v Petrobangla, Writ Petition No 9204 of 2013, two refineries challenged the minimum-bill clause of the 2004 gas marketing policy, which charged industrial consumers 50% to 60% of their sanctioned load and had been written into their supply contracts. On 8 February 2015 the High Court Division discharged the Rules: the policy had no force of law of its own, so the challenge was really to contract terms, which carried an arbitration clause, and the petitioners had not disclosed a letter promising to clear their arrears.[8]

A utility disconnection writ against a gas distributor must therefore identify a statutory duty or power that was breached, not merely a contractual one.

Water disconnection under the WASA Act 1996

Section 26 of the Water Supply and Sewerage Authority Act 1996 gives an Authority three disconnection powers. It may disconnect an unauthorised connection, meaning one installed without prior approval or not in accordance with the approval, at any time. It may disconnect a consumer for unpaid water, sewerage or drainage charges, but only in the prescribed manner and after giving at least one month's notice. And it may disconnect, in the prescribed manner, a consumer who uses water for a purpose other than that for which the connection was given or draws supply by electric pump or other unauthorised means.[7]

The one-month notice requirement for arrears is the most useful protection for consumers. A WASA disconnection for unpaid charges without that notice is open to challenge as made without following the statute. The 1996 Act was amended in 2026 by Act No 27 of 2026, which inserted provisions on the removal and appointment of managing directors, officers and boards in special circumstances, with effect from 24 October 2024; those changes do not alter section 26.[7]

Billing disputes and the BERC route

For electricity and gas, the Energy Regulatory Commission Act 2003 provides a structured complaint process. Section 54 requires every licensee to maintain complaint centres and publicise their locations. A consumer may complain by telephone or in writing, every complaint must be recorded in a register, and the licensee must resolve it within seven days following the Commission's code of practice. If the licensee fails to resolve it properly and in time, the consumer may apply in writing to the Commission, which must make the necessary order within seven days of receiving the application.[2]

Section 40 goes further. Notwithstanding the Arbitration Act 2001 or any other law, any dispute between licensees, or between a licensee and a consumer, must be referred to the Commission. The Commission may act as arbitrator or appoint one, may make interim orders before or during the proceedings, and its award or order is final and enforceable as if it were a civil court decree. Section 55 adds that any decision or order of the Commission under the Act is final.[2]

Why the regulator comes first

Because the Commission has power to make interim orders and to resolve consumer disputes quickly, the High Court will usually expect a consumer disputing a bill or a disconnection to use that route before filing a utility disconnection writ. Our sibling guide on the alternative remedy bar in writ petitions explains the general rule. The writ remains available where the Commission itself acts without lawful authority or refuses to act.

Tariffs and the 2026 restoration of BERC's role

Disputes about the level of tariffs are distinct from disputes about individual bills. Under section 34 of the Commission Act, the Commission fixes tariffs after hearing licensees and other interested parties. A licensee may propose a change, and the Commission must announce its decision within 60 days of receiving the full proposal, a period cut from 90 days in 2023. The consolidated text also carries a 2023 proviso allowing the government to fix or adjust tariffs by gazette notification until the Commission makes its tariff regulations.[2]

Section 34A of the Act was removed by ordinance in 2024. The Energy Regulatory Commission (Amendment) Act 2026, Act No 40 of 2026, published on 10 April 2026, confirmed that deletion, repealed the Energy Regulatory Commission (Amendment) Ordinance 2024 (Ordinance No 7 of 2024) and preserved anything done under it.[3]

The June 2026 tariff order and partial withdrawal

The hearing process was tested in June 2026. After public hearings on 20 and 21 May, the Commission raised wholesale, transmission and retail tariffs on 3 June 2026, lifting the weighted average retail tariff by 16.68% to Tk 10.63 per kWh. A day later, on review applications from the distribution utilities and a request from the Power Division, it withdrew the rise for lifeline consumers using up to 50 units and first-slab residential consumers using up to 75 units, keeping their rates at Tk 4.63 and Tk 5.26 per kWh. The increases for other categories took effect from the June billing month.[4]

A consumer billed at a rate that did not come through the Commission's process, or at a rate the Commission has withdrawn for that consumer's category, has a clear basis to dispute the bill, first with the licensee and then before the Commission.[2] [4]

When a utility disconnection writ succeeds

The courts have drawn a firm boundary between public law and contract. In Government of Bangladesh v Golam Mustafa, following Superintendent Engineer, RHD v Md Enus and Brothers, 31 BLD (AD) 1, the Appellate Division restated when writ jurisdiction lies for breach of contract: broadly, contracts made by the government as sovereign, obligations arising from a statutory duty or public function, contracts whose terms are prescribed by statute, and breaches of a statutory obligation by a body contracting under statutory power. An ordinary commercial bargain with a public body does not qualify.[9]

The courts also refuse to decide disputed facts in writ proceedings. In the same case, reported at 19 SCOB [2024] AD 155, the Appellate Division reaffirmed that a writ bench should not decide a disputed question of fact requiring evidence, noting that the same view was taken in Nuruddin (Md) v Titas Gas Transmission and Distribution Company Limited, 3 BLC (AD) 231.[9] A dispute about how much gas or electricity was actually consumed is a classic factual dispute.

Recent High Court orders on gas reconnection

In Md Liton v Government of Bangladesh, Writ Petition No 9807 of 2022, four burners belonging to one co-owner on a shared Titas customer account had been cut off in a family dispute, and the distributor had not acted on his request to restore them. On 16 May 2024 the court made the Rule absolute and directed Titas to restore the connection to its earlier position until a pending civil suit was decided, observing that gas, electricity and water are basic necessities of human life.[10]

Interim reconnection is usually conditional. In Sarder Mahmud Hossain v Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, Writ Petition No 3822 of 2016, a Gazipur knitwear factory challenged the permanent disconnection of its gas line. The court ordered reconnection pending the hearing on condition that the factory paid half the outstanding bills first, the balance in six monthly instalments, and its current bills on time. The factory never filed proof of payment, and on 29 April 2024 the Rule was discharged.[11]

Where the real dispute is the amount owed, the court sends the consumer to the regulator. In Gazipur Paper Board Ltd v Government of Bangladesh, Writ Petition No 15306 of 2025, the factory challenged a Titas disconnection report of 23 June 2025 alleging an illegal or bypass connection. Titas offered to reconnect on payment of its dues, even by instalments; the factory disputed the bill. On 26 November 2025 the court held that it could not investigate those questions in writ jurisdiction and that BERC was the proper authority to decide them. Titas had by then answered the representations, which the court had earlier directed it to decide within 15 days, so the Rule was discharged as infructuous.[12]

Grounds that work

Drawing these principles together, a utility disconnection writ is most likely to succeed where the disconnection:

• was made for a reason the statute does not recognise;[1] [7]
• ignored a mandatory procedural step, such as the one-month notice for WASA arrears or the prescribed procedure under section 18(1);[1] [7]
• was based on a tariff fixed outside the Commission's statutory process;[3]
• followed the Commission's failure to decide a complaint within the statutory seven days;[2]
• left the consumer's written representations undecided, which the court can direct the utility to decide within a fixed time;[12]
• cut off supply already sanctioned for the premises, without a statutory ground, in a way the utility then refused to correct.[10]

Grounds that rarely work are disputes about consumption figures, claims that depend only on the supply agreement, and requests for reconnection after a disconnection that genuinely falls within section 18(1). Disputes over an alleged illegal connection fare no better.[1] [8] [9] [12] Our sibling guide on the writ in contractual matters explores the boundary further.

Interim relief in a utility disconnection writ

For a factory or a hospital, the decisive question is often whether supply can be restored while the dispute is resolved. Two routes exist. The Commission may make any interim order it considers appropriate before or during proceedings under section 40, which makes it the natural first forum for urgent relief in electricity and gas disputes.[2] The High Court may also grant interim relief in a utility disconnection writ, but it will be cautious where section 18(2) of the Electricity Act applies, because an interim reconnection order would achieve indirectly what the statute forbids.[1]

An application for interim relief is strongest when the petitioner offers to pay part of the arrears at once and the rest in instalments, pays the undisputed portion, and shows a clear procedural defect in the disconnection. Any such order will be conditional, and failing to comply with it can cost the petitioner the whole case.[11] It is weakest where the dispute is really about consumption figures, which the court will not resolve on affidavit.[9]

Industrial consumers and theft allegations

Industrial gas and power consumers face the heaviest consequences. Under the 2026 gas amendment, the owner of the premises and any contractor who assisted illegal use can also be prosecuted, and penalties for power and fertiliser consumers reach up to two years' imprisonment or a fine of up to Tk 4 lakh, or both, for a first offence.[6] A factory facing a disconnection linked to a theft or illegal-use allegation should treat it as a potential criminal matter from the outset, preserve evidence of its metering and approved load, and avoid admissions in correspondence before taking advice.

Bodies involved in a utility disconnection writ

The right respondents depend on the utility and on the stage the dispute has reached.

Step-by-step: responding to a disconnection

Speed matters, but so does sequence.

Swipe or scroll →

Throughout, keep paying undisputed amounts. A consumer who disputes only the contested portion is far stronger before the Commission and the court.

Choosing the right remedy

The table below compares the main routes. On a phone, scroll it sideways.

Industrial consumers should also review supply agreements before a dispute arises. Clear terms on notice, metering disputes and interim supply pending resolution reduce the risk of sudden disconnection. Complex energy disputes are handled by our power and electricity practice and our constitutional and writ litigation practice; the procedure is set out in our guide to the writ petition in Bangladesh.

Frequently asked questions

Can the electricity company cut my supply for an unpaid bill?

Yes. Section 18(1) of the Electricity Act 2018 allows a licensee to disconnect for non-payment or illegal use, following the prescribed procedure.[1]

Can a court order reconnection of electricity?

Not where the disconnection was made under section 18(1); section 18(2) bars any court from ordering reconnection. A challenge must show the disconnection was outside that power.[1]

Does WASA have to give notice before cutting water for arrears?

Yes. Section 26 of the 1996 Act requires at least one month's notice in the prescribed manner before disconnection for unpaid charges. Unauthorised connections may be cut at any time.[7]

Where do I complain about a wrong electricity or gas bill?

First to the licensee's complaint centre, which must resolve it within seven days. If it does not, apply in writing to BERC, which must make an order within seven days.[2]

Can I go to arbitration over a utility dispute?

Disputes between a licensee and a consumer must be referred to BERC under section 40 of the 2003 Act, notwithstanding the Arbitration Act 2001. BERC may arbitrate or appoint an arbitrator.[2]

Is a utility disconnection writ available for a gas cut under the supply contract?

Generally not. In Marine Vegetable Oil v Petrobangla (2015) the High Court Division held a challenge to minimum-bill terms in gas supply contracts not maintainable and left the parties to the contracts' arbitration clause.[8]

Will the High Court decide how much electricity I used?

No. The Appellate Division has held that disputed questions of fact requiring evidence are not decided in writ proceedings, and in a 2025 Titas case the High Court left the disputed bill to BERC. The meter record is presumed correct unless the contrary is proved.[1] [9] [12]

What happens after an electricity theft allegation?

The licensee must disconnect and file a complaint in court within seven working days. A first-time accused may settle by paying three times the value plus fees, with reconnection within 48 hours.[1]

Can the government raise power prices without BERC?

Tariffs are set by BERC after hearing interested parties, and section 34A was deleted by Act No 40 of 2026. A 2023 proviso still lets the government set tariffs by gazette until BERC makes tariff regulations.[2] [3]

What changed in gas law in 2026?

Act No 52 of 2026 extended illegal gas use offences to abettors, premises owners and staff, introduced graded penalties by consumer class and required blacklisting of convicted contractors.[6]