Susanta Kumar Seal vs The Station Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 55 Cal

   17
06.01.2021             IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  sb
   Ct23               CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                              APPELLATE SIDE

                               WPA 10916 of 2020

                                Susanta Kumar Seal
                                        Vs.
                 The Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity
                       Distribution Company Limited & Anr.


                       Mr. Prasanta Kumar Pakrashi
                                       ... For the petitioner.

                       Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh
                                        ... For the respondent no.2.

The petitioner is the son of respondent no.2

(private respondent). The petitioner claims to reside

in the premises owned by the private respondent. The

petitioner says that there is a meter in the name of

the private respondent, installed at the premises

wherefrom the petitioner used to enjoy electricity. The

private respondent according to the petitioner does

not stay at the said premises. The private respondent

had objected to the petitioner enjoying electricity

through the meter standing in her name. Pursuant to

the complaint made by the private respondent, the

supply was disconnected. The petitioner seeks an

independent meter in his name at the said premises.

Since the WBSEDCL has not provided the electric

connection despite an application being made by the

petitioner to that effect, the petitioner has filed the

instant writ petition.

The private respondent says that the said

respondent (respondent no.2) had filed a suit against

the petitioner for recovery of possession. The said

suit was decreed on 7th October, 2005, by the learned

Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Hooghly,

directing the petitioner, being the defendant in the

said suit, to vacate the suit premises within 90 days

of the judgment.

The petitioner had challenged the said

decree by filing an appeal, being Title Appeal No.5 of

2006. The said appeal was dismissed on 18th April,

2009, by the 3rd Court of Additional District Judge,

Hooghly, upholding the decree of the trial Court. The

Execution proceedings have been filed, being the Title

Execution No.18 of 2009. I am told by the private

respondent that the Title Execution is at the stage of

police help for executing the decree. The appellate

judgment and decree has been made over to the

Court and is retained in the record.

The petitioner may be in possession of the

property-in-question. However, in view of the

appellate decree of the year 2009, as aforesaid, which

has not been challenged, the petitioner's prayer for

electric connection cannot be granted without the

matter being heard on affidavits.

Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within

three weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, within

two weeks thereafter.

Let this matter appear in the list six weeks

hence under the heading "Hearing.

It is made clear that the pendency of the

writ petition will not stand in the way of the

execution proceedings and the executing Court shall

be free to proceed with the execution, irrespective of

the petitioner's case in the writ petition and without

being influenced by this order.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)