Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Santosh Agarwal vs Cesc Limited And Others on 26 November, 2021
15
26.11.2021
TN
WPA No.18448 of 2021
Santosh Agarwal
Vs.
CESC Limited and others
Mr. Bidyut Kr. Halder,
Mr. Indranil Halder
....for the petitioner
Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy
....for the CESC Limited
Mr. Debjit Mukherjee,
Ms. Susmita Chatterjee
....for the respondent-State
Heard in part.
The report filed by the State-respondent is kept
on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the petitioner is willing to deposit fifty per cent of the
assessed amount for getting reconnection of electric
supply to the petitioner's premises in the interregnum,
prior to the petitioner preferring an appeal, if any,
against the order of final assessment.
Learned counsel contends that there are several
judgments of this court on the said question, wherein
coordinate Benches have directed restoration of
electric connection upon deposit of fifty per cent of the
assessed amount.
Learned counsel appearing for the CESC
Limited contends that such scope of reconnection,
upon payment of fifty per cent of the assessed
amount, does not find place in law. In this context,
learned counsel places specific reliance upon the third
proviso to Section 135A of the Electricity Act, 2003
(hereinafter referred to as "the 2003 Act"), as well as
Sections 126 and 127 of the 2003 Act, in support of
the proposition that the law provides sufficiently for
the consumer to get reconnection upon payment of the
full assessed amount, in which case the licensee is
duty-bound to restore the electric supply within 48
hours of such payment.
In the present case, it is submitted, despite
having been given a notice, no objection was filed by
the petitioner to the provisional assessment arrived at
by the CESC authorities. Thereafter, final assessment
has also been made regarding the charges payable by
the petitioner.
It is contended further that, only in the event
the petitioner wants to prefer an appeal, the petitioner
can do so under Section 127 of the 2003 Act, upon
deposit of fifty per cent of the assessed amount.
However, the said provision merely gives the right to
appeal to the aggrieved party upon such deposit of fifty
per cent and not the right of reconnection, which is
only subject to payment of the full amount as provided
in law.
Learned counsel for the CESC Limited cites in
this context two coordinate Benches judgments of this
court, reported respectively at (2012) 3 Cal LJ 587
[Graviour Printing Industries vs. CESC Limited & Ors.]
and 2011(2) CHN (Cal) 571 [Tarun Pal vs. West Bengal
State Electricity], as well as a judgment of the Supreme
Court reported at (2019) 5 CHN (SC) 72 [West Bengal
State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. vs.
M/s. Orion Metal Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.].
It prima facie appears from the judgment of the
Supreme Court, cited by the CESC Limited, that the
same was rendered in a somewhat different context.
Although the Supreme Court clarified the law as laid
down in Sections 126 and 127 vis-à-vis Section 135 of
the 2003 Act in the said judgment, with utmost
respect, such judgment is not directly relevant to the
issue at hand. However, in both the coordinate Bench
judgments of this court, the learned Single Judges
categorically discussed the law and clearly observed
that there is no provision under the law to give
reconnection of electric supply in the case of theft or
pilferage unless the accused person/consumer
deposits the entire assessed amount.
Learned counsel for the CESC Limited also
places reliance on Regulations 4.2 and 6.3 of the
Regulations framed by the West Bengal Electricity
Regulatory Commission vide Notification
No.55/WBERC, published in the Kolkata Gazette of
August 7, 2013, in support of his contentions.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks a day's adjournment to come ready
with certain other citations on the point that there are
other precedents where reconnection was directed
upon payment of fifty per cent of the assessed amount
only.
For the sake of fairness, a day's adjournment is
granted to the petitioner.
Let the matter stand adjourned till
November 29, 2021 for further hearing.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
