Satya Narayan Bose vs District Engineer
2021 Latest Caselaw 6011 Cal

   43
02.12.2021
   TN



                            WPA No.10030 of 2021

                              Satya Narayan Bose
                                      Vs.
                District Engineer, the Calcutta Electric Supply
                       Corporation Limited and others


             Mr. Atis Kumar Biswas,
             Mr. J. N. Manna,
             Mr. Amit Singh,
             Ms. Jyoti Agarwal
                                                .... for the petitioner

             Mr. Debanjan Mukherji
                                                     ....for the CSEC

             Mr. Tarun Kumar Ghosh,
             Mrs. Debarati Sen (Bose)
                                                      ....for the State

             Mr. Ankit Agarwala,
             Mr. Alotniya Mukherjee
                                        ....for the private respondent

The contention of the petitioner is that the CESC

Limited is not acting on the request of the petitioner to

repair the existing electric meter, standing in the name

of the petitioner at the premises-in-question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

during pendency of an eviction proceeding, the

landlord/private respondent disconnected the electric

supply to the petitioner's premises, thereby causing

serious loss to the business of the petitioner.

However, learned counsel for the CESC Limited,

by pointing out to the application of the petitioner

himself, annexed at page-18 of the writ petition,

contends that the petitioner specifically sought

stoppage of supply with immediate effect on October 3,

2018. It is contended that subsequently the electric

meter was disconnected as per the request of the

petitioner himself and the electric meter was removed.

As such, it is contended that there cannot arise any

question of repair of any electric meter in the name of

the petitioner at the premises.

Learned counsel appearing for the private

respondent submits that an eviction decree was

obtained against the petitioner by the private

respondent under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy

Act, 1997 as long back as in the year 2002. The

matter came up to this court in second appeal and

ultimately the judgment of eviction stood affirmed. As

such, it is argued that there is no scope for granting

the relief prayed in the writ petition.

A mere perusal of the writ petition clearly shows

that the same is patently mala fide and an attempt to

harass the private respondent/landlord as well as the

CESC unnecessarily. The writ petition is full of

contradictions. At page-18, the petitioner has annexed

a letter dated October 3, 2018 written to the Officer-

in-Charge of the Central Regional Office, requesting

the CESC to stop supply to the electric meter at the

premises with immediate effect, and also lodged a

complaint of power theft by the landlord of the

petitioner.

That apart, the petitioner has categorically

suppressed that the petitioner is suffering an eviction

decree since 2002, which has since been affirmed up

to the second appellate stage in this court.

In the writ petition itself, an order of the

executing court has been annexed, which clearly

indicates that the eviction proceeding is at the

execution stage.

As such, the prayer in the writ petition, being a

direction on the CESC to repair the 'existing' electric

meter is patently inconsistent and mutually exclusive

with the request of the petitioner himself to stop

supply and subsequent disconnection on such request

by the CESC Limited. Moreover, the dispute which has

arisen between the landlord and the petitioner has

already been resolved by a competent civil court and

affirmed upto this Hon'ble Court in second appeal

and, as on today, the petitioner is not a 'tenant' within

the definition of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy

Act, 1997, having already suffered an eviction decree.

In such view of the fact, there is no other rhyme

or reason for the petitioner to have filed this writ

petition but to make a last attempt to stall the

execution proceeding.

As such, there is no merit in the writ petition. In

view of the unnecessary harassment caused to the

respondent nos. 1 and 3 by the petitioner, costs ought

to be imposed on the petitioner

Accordingly, WPA No.10030 of 2021 is dismissed

with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/- payable to the

respondent no.1 and Rs.20,000/- to the private

respondent no.3 by the petitioner both payable within

a week from date.

In the event of non-payment, it will be open to

the respondent nos.1 and/or 3 to take out appropriate

proceedings for contempt.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)