Swapan Kumr Dey Alias Das vs The West Bengal State Electricity ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6403 Cal

    13
17.12.2021

TN

WPA No.13788 of 2021

Swapan Kumr Dey alias Das Vs.

The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and others

Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, Ms. Poulami Dutta .... for the petitioner

Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ms. Rituparna Maitra .... for the WBSEDCL

When the matter is called on for hearing,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues

that, in view of a Division Bench judgment, whereby a

proceeding drawn up by the Distribution Company

under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was set

aside and the entire deposit made by the petitioner

was directed to be refunded, the subsequent refusal of

the Distribution Company to act upon the application

for reconnection made by the petitioner as long back

as in the year 2006, for which subsequently

reconnection charges were also paid by the petitioner,

was illegal.

It is argued that in view of the said order of this

court dated March 4, 2020 passed in FMA 618 of

2020 (MAT 909 of 2019), the provisions of Clauses

4.6.1 and 6.1 of Regulation 55 of 2013 issued by the

West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission

(WBERC) are not applicable. The first of the said

Clauses provides that if the power supply to any

consumer remains disconnected continuously for a

period of one hundred and eighty days where the

disconnection has been effected in compliance with

any of the provisions of the Act or Regulations, the

agreement of the licensee with the consumer for

supply of electricity shall be deemed to have been

terminated with consequential effect on expiry of the

said period.

In the present case, it is contended that in view

of the entire assessment, provisional and/or final,

having been vitiated as per the order of the Division

Bench, it has to be deemed that the disconnection

was on a date prior to the assessment being made.

Since the petitioner had already applied for

restoration of connection along with the due charges

within the period of 180 days thereafter, the operation

of Clause 4.6.1 is not attracted in the present case.

That apart, it is argued that Clause 6.1 of the

said Regulation clearly provides that on payment of all

assessed amount as per Sections 126 and 127 of the

Act, as may be applicable, where there is no further

dispute between the licensee and the person, then on

receipt of an application from the person for new

service connection in the said premises where

disconnection took place, service connection can be

provided in terms of the SOP as applicable for an

intending consumer.

In the present case, such application was filed

within the stipulated period and, in view of the

assessment order passed by the authorities having

been vitiated by virtue of the Division Bench order, it

is submitted, it is the onus of the Distribution

Company to immediately grant reconnection on the

basis of the earlier application and reconnection

charges.

At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for

the Distribution Company submits that it has been

suppressed by the petitioner in the writ petition that a

previous order was passed on a challenge of the

petitioner against the provisional order of assessment,

which was turned down by this court.

In view of such order, it is argued that the

petitioner's disconnection squarely attracts Clauses

4.6.1 as well as 6.1 of Regulation No. 55.

In view of such controversy having arisen in the

matter on facts, the Distribution Company is directed

to file an affidavit-in-opposition, annexing all relevant

documents, if any, within December 22, 2021.

Reply, if any, shall be filed by the petitioner

within two days thereafter.

The matter shall next be enlisted for hearing on

December 24, 2021.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)