Bhaskar Paul vs The Calcutta Electric Supply
2021 Latest Caselaw 5884 Cal

 AD. 20.
November 30, 2021.
MNS.




                         (Through Video Conference)

                             WPA No. 16560 of 2021

                                   Bhaskar Paul
                                         Vs.
                             The Calcutta Electric Supply
                               Corporation and others

                     Ms. Arundhati Banerjee,
                     Mr. Kaustave Banerjee,
                     Ms. A. Sett

                                  ... for the petitioner.

                     Mr. Mihir Kundu

                                  ...for the CESC Limited.

                     Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh

                                         ...for the respondent no. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that,

the respondent no. 5, being the co-owner of the

property, is raising objection to the CESC Limited in

giving independent electric connection in the name of

the petitioner to the premises-in-question, where the

petitioner is residing.

Learned counsel appearing for the CESC Limited

contends, in his usual fairness, that there is no

impediment otherwise than the fact that since there was

no partition of the property-in-question and it remains a

co-owned property, the new electric meter in the name

of the petitioner, if given, has to be installed from the

existing electric meter board.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 cites

the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench reported at 2003

(4) CHN 541 (Nabin Agarwal & Anr. Vs. C.E.S.C.

Limited & Ors.), wherein it was held, inter alia, that

regarding the technical feasibility for supply of electrical

energy, the premises-in-question in that case was

spread over a vast area of 22 bighas and the

prospective consumer was occupying a particular

portion, which was distinctly separated from the rest of

the portion of the premises. As such, in the said context,

the Division Bench held that the technical difficulties

cannot be dependent on the allotment of premises

numbers by the Municipal authorities, but that the CESC

Limited had taken a peculiar stand. It was held

ultimately that occupiers of segregated buildings or

structures were entitled to separate electric connection

from different meters, even in the event there was no

formal partition of the premises.

It is, thus, contended that, in the event the

petitioner is interested in taking electric connection, the

same should be given in a separate electric meter,

which has to be situated in a different electric meter

board than that of the private respondent no. 5.

Upon hearing the respective contentions of the

parties, it is apparent that there are several distinctions

between the cited judgment and the present case. First,

the same pertained to a High Tension connection, as

mentioned in paragraph 17 thereof, and there was a

specific dispute contended by the CESC Limited that

some of the tenants therein, at that juncture, had a load

of more than 50 KW which obliged them to obtain

individual High Tension supply.

On such premise, the learned single Judge was

pleased to hold that, in the event such High Tension

supply is to be given, the same can be given in the event

the premises are physically segregated but no partition

has been effected.

With utmost respect, I am constrained to differ

with the said proposition as laid down by the single

Judge in the cited judgment, to the extent that if property

is not demarcated in accordance with law, that is, by

virtue of a registered partition decree and/or a formal

partition decree granted by a competent court of law,

there cannot arise any question of mutation of the

respective portions of the petitioner and the private

respondent in the present case. That apart, in the event

there is an existing meter board in the unpartitioned

property, the CESC Limited is bound by norms to give

new electric connection from the same existing meter

board.

That apart, it defies logic as to how the CESC

Limited, which is not a competent civil court, or the writ

court for that matter, can enter into the question as to

whether the respective portions of the disputing parties

are categorically demarcated between themselves

and/or such demarcation was done by an oral

arrangement between the parties.

Although it is settled law that in the event there is

an oral arrangement, which has been acted upon by the

disputing parties and such consent is recorded in a

subsequent document, such document does not confer

title ipso facto and, thus, did not be registered.

However, in the present case, no such document

and/or proof of oral arrangement is existing. It is entirely

beyond the scope of the writ court jurisdiction and/or the

CESC Limited to enter into such question on merits and

adjudicate on such issue.

As it stands now, the property is admittedly a co-

ownership of the petitioner and the respondent no. 5

and, as such, said law enumerates that all the co-

owners have equal rights over every inch of the

property. In such view of the matter, the respondent no.

5 cannot come in the way of the petitioner being granted

a new connection from the same meter board, which is

already existing in the premises-in-question. However,

since I respectfully differ from the learned single Judge

insofar as the proposition laid down in Nabin Agarwal &

Anr. Vs. C.E.S.C. Limited & Ors. (supra) is concerned,

the matter is sent to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for

being referred to a larger Bench to resolve the question :

"whether it is legally plausible for the CESC

Limited to give separate domestic connections from

separate electric meter boards in respect of the same

premises, which is co-owned by different parties and not

partitioned by metes and bounds as per law, either by

any registered partition deed or by a competent court's

decree?"

As such, let such question be referred to an

appropriate larger Bench and the file be sent to the

Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the purpose of assigning

the matter upon constituting an appropriate larger Bench

to decide such question.

However, as discussed above, there is prima

facie no impediment for the CESC Limited to give an

electric connection to the petitioner, subject to

compliance of all formalities by the petitioner, from the

existing meter board.

Hence, the final decision in the matter is kept

reserved till the reference is resolved by the appropriate

larger Bench. However, in the meantime, since a strong

prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner to

go for final hearing of the writ petition, the CESC Limited

shall give a new electric connection to the petitioner from

the existing meter board at the premises-in-question,

subject to compliance of all formalities by the petitioner,

after an inspection is held by the officials of the CESC

Limited. In the event any hindrance is created in such

inspection and/or connection being given, the officials of

the CESC Limited would be free to approach the

respondent no. 4, that is, the Officer-in-Charge of the

Kasba Police Station, to provide adequate police

assistance at the cost of the petitioner, in the event such

police help is necessary to implement the inspection

and/or new connection.

It is made clear that the final decision of the

present writ petition is kept pending till the decision on

the reference and the ad interim order granted herein

will be subject to the result of the reference and the final

disposal of the writ petition.

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.)