The Calcutta High Court disposed of a writ petition observed that the private respondents have no locus standi to object to the petitioner’s enjoyment of electricity in her name, in view of the property having already been sold to the petitioner and the petitioner is the owner and occupier of the same.
Brief Facts:
The electricity connection which was there at the premises-in-question, which has since been purchased by the petitioner, was disconnected. Thereafter, the petitioner sought a new electricity connection in the petitioner’s name, which has not been given by Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited (CESC Limited), apparently due to the objection by the private respondents.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there was no disconnection at any point in time and the petitioner is still enjoying electricity from the existing connection at the premises. Further, he contended that the petitioner is not entitled to seek a new electricity connection in view of Section 135, read with Section 42, of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Learned Counsel also argued that after taking possession of the premises, the petitioner is using the same for the functioning of a political party, which is not the original purpose for which it was used. Hence, the petitioner is guilty of theft of electricity.
The Learned Counsel for CESC Limited submitted that the electricity connection at the premises in question is still live. However, the same is in the name of the erstwhile consumer, who is the deceased mother of the private respondents. Hence, CESC Limited is required to remove the said connection, which is continuing in the name of a deceased person, and is agreeable to give the new connection to the petitioner subject to the previous apparatus being removed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that there is no dispute as to the petitioner having purchased the property in question and being in occupation thereof. It is well-settled that a person in settled possession of a property is, within the contemplation of Section 43 of the 2003 Act, entitled to get an independent electricity connection in her/his name. The CESC Limited is justified in arguing that the live connection at the premises cannot continue in the name of a deceased person and hence, is required to be disconnected in terms of law and Regulations.
The Court observed that the private respondents have no locus standi to object to the petitioner’s enjoyment of electricity in her name, in view of the property having already been sold to the petitioner and the petitioner being the owner and occupier of the same.
Further, the Court remarked that the argument on Section 135(1)(e) cannot have any bearing in the present case, since the petitioner is seeking a new connection, which shall not be circumscribed by any prior electricity connection or the purpose for which such prior connection was taken. Section 135(1)(e) only applies when an electricity connection is taken for a particular purpose but is being used for another purpose. Since, in the present case, the petitioner is seeking a fresh electricity connection, the stage of changing purpose has not come as yet, and the said clause cannot be applicable.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, allowing the petition, held that CESC Limited give an electricity connection to the petitioner.
Case Title: Smt. Ratna Bhowmick vs The Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Case no.: W.P.A. No. 12969 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Prantick Ghosh
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Suman Ghosh and Mr. Sanajit Ghosh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
