Raghunath Dewan & Anr vs The West Bengal State Electricity
2022 Latest Caselaw 2418 Cal

  12
28.04.2022.
  mb


                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                             APPELLATE SIDE

                             W.P.A. No. 5753 of 2022

                            Raghunath Dewan & Anr.
                                     -vs.-
                       The West Bengal State Electricity
                      Distribution Company Limited & Ors.


                    Mr. Kanai Lal Mondal,
                    Mr. Rajat Kumar Dhar
                                   ...for the petitioners

                    Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy
                                 ...for the respondent no. 1

Mr. Rajiv Lall ...for the CESC Limited

Mr. Rama Prasad Sarkar, Mr. Bidhan Biswas ...for the State

Mr. Nurul Arefin, Mr. Rahul Singh ..for the respondent nos. 4 and 5

It is rightly pointed out by learned counsel

appearing for the respondent no. 1 that the said

respondent has been unnecessarily impleaded in the

matter, to which submission, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners, in his usual fairness, consents.

Hence, on the prayer of learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners, liberty is granted to the

learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners to carry

out consequential amendment in the cause title of the

writ petition during the course of the day, to expunge

the respondent no. 1 from the cause title of the writ

petition.

Since it is rightly contended by learned counsel

for the CESC Limited that two separate and individual

causes of action of each of the writ petitioners have been

joined in a single writ petition, the petitioners are

directed to put in additional court fees, commensurate

with the balance amount, as payable for two separate

applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, by tomorrow.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that the petitioners had filed a civil suit against

the predecessor of the private respondents and others.

The said suit was instituted primarily for declaration

that a transfer deed in favour of the private respondents'

predecessor-in-interest was null and void. Although the

trial court dismissed the suit, the first appellate court

reversed the said judgment, which came up to a second

appeal, which was, in turn, dismissed for default.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

produces a photocopy of an order which shows that a

subsequent application for restoration of the second

appeal was also dismissed for non-prosecution. As

such, the decree has attained finality as of today.

In view of the first appellate court's order, the

private respondents do not have any legal right to stay

at the property.

However, the transfer of the existing meter in

the name of the petitioners cannot be granted, since the

private respondents are still in physical occupation of

the said property.

Moreover, learned counsel appearing for the

CESC Limited points out that previously, on the

impression given by the writ petitioners that there was

no objection by the erstwhile consumers, the electricity

meter was transferred in the name of the petitioners.

Subsequently, however, it was discovered that the

erstwhile consumers, that is, the private respondents,

had serious objection to such transfer, upon which the

transfer in the name of the petitioners was negated and

the electricity meter now stands again in the name of

the private respondents.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for

the CESC Limited that the connection is live even at the

present moment and electricity charges are being paid

by the consumers.

Learned counsel appearing for the private

respondents opposes the prayer for transfer of name as

well as the alternative prayer of the petitioners for

getting new electricity connection, for which also a

representation was given by the petitioners, on the

ground that the private respondents are at present in

physical occupation of the property.

Although learned counsel appearing for the

private respondents submits that the petitioners have

no locus standi to claim possession in the property

merely on the basis of the decree passed in the earlier

suit, it is also true that the decree does not disprove the

petitioners' possession either.

In any event, it is for the Distribution Licensee

to decide on the relevant yardsticks in the event a

proper application in appropriate format is made by the

petitioners for a new electricity connection in the name

of the petitioners.

Hence, W.P.A. No. 5753 of 2022 is disposed of

by granting liberty to the petitioners to make a fresh

application, in appropriate format, for getting a new

electricity connection in their names at the premises-in-

dispute.

If so applied, the CESC Limited shall consider

the said application, subject to the compliance of all

formalities by the petitioners, and if found feasible by

the CESC Limited, the CESC Limited shall expeditiously

give such new connection to the petitioners.

The above order shall be conditional upon the

petitioners putting in additional court fees by tomorrow.

It is, however, made clear that the rival

contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioners

and the private respondent nos. 4 and 5 have not been

gone into by this Court on merits.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)