Macadum Leisure Pvt. Ltd vs West Bengal State Electricity ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8328 Cal

AD-11
Ct No.09
14.12.2022
TN
                               WPA No. 26606 of 2022

                         Macadum Leisure Pvt. Ltd.
                                    Vs.
              West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company
                               Ltd. and others


             Mr. Mukteswar Maity,
             Ms. Manika Sarkar
                                                        .... for the petitioner

             Mr. Sumit Ray
                                                       .... for the WBSEDCL



                   Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that

             despite the petitioner enjoying an injunction order in a

             civil suit for specific performance of contract filed

             against the private respondent, the West Bengal State

Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL)

is not giving electricity supply to the petitioner. By

pointing out to the communication of the WBSEDCL

dated September 15, 2022 (Annexure P/5 on page-45

of the writ petition), it is submitted that the

WBSEDCL is unnecessarily insisting upon the

production of a registered deed as proof of ownership

of the petitioner with regard to the property as well as

claiming outstanding dues amounting to Rs.96,679/-

along with subsequent LPSC.

It is submitted that the previous dues were left

unpaid by the erstwhile owner, with whom the

petitioner had entered into an agreement for transfer,

and possession had been handed over in favour of the

petitioner with regard to the property-in-question.

Moreover, no document as to ownership is

necessary for getting an electricity connection.

Learned counsel for the Distribution Licensee

submits that the WBSEDCL sought for some

document showing the petitioner's occupation of the

property. That apart, in the writ petition itself, it has

been admitted that the petitioner was enjoying

electricity connection from the meter regarding which

default has been left by the consumer.

It is seen from the communication of the

WBSEDCL that a registered deed as proof of

ownership has been insisted upon de hors the law,

since a mere occupant of a property, even without

being the owner thereof, is entitled to electricity

connection in his own name irrespective of the legality

of such occupation.

The civil court, in its injunction order dated May

20, 2022, passed in Title Suit No. 510 of 2020, came

to the finding that whether the plaintiff/writ petitioner

is illegal occupier or not will be decided after taking

evidence from both sides. It was further found that the

allegation of disconnection of water line against the

defendant was clearly made in the petition, on which

point the defendant in the suit remained silent.

The defendant in the suit was directed to restore

the water connection in the suit premises.

From the tenor of the said observations, it is

clear that the Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court

at Barasat, being a competent court where a suit for

specific performance is pending between the petitioner

and the private respondent, came to the prima facie

conclusion that the petitioner is in occupation of the

property, irrespective of the legality or illegality

thereof.

Although learned counsel for the WBSEDCL

seeks to place reliance on the Works of Licensees

Rules, 2006, to the effect that a person has to be in

lawful occupation for getting electricity supply, it has

been well-settled by several judgments of this court

that the lawfulness or otherwise of a person who is in

occupation of a property shall not be decided by the

Distribution Licensee for the purpose of giving

electricity connection to the said occupant.

Hence, the insistence on a registered deed of

ownership, particularly in the teeth of pendency of the

suit for specific performance pending at the behest of

the plaintiff, is irrational and illegal.

However, the WBSEDCL would be justified in

insisting upon production of some prima facie

document to indicate occupation of the property by

the petitioner.

In the present case, such requirement is also

obviated in view of the specific finding of the civil

court, although prima facie, to the effect that the

petitioner is in occupation of the property.

Hence, irrespective of the legality of such

occupation, which is not the look-out of the

WBSEDCL to decide, since a suit is pending before a

competent civil court, the connection has to be given

by the WBSEDCL in the name of the petitioner.

However, since the petitioner is agreeable to deposit

the outstanding amounts without prejudice to his

rights and contentions, the WBSEDCL cannot have

any further impediment in giving the electricity

connection to the petitioner.

Accordingly, WPA No. 26606 of 2022 is disposed

of by directing the WBSEDCL to give electricity

connection in the name of the petitioner, subject to

compliance of formalities and deposit of the

outstanding amounts with regard to the existing meter

at the premises, to the tune of Rs.96,679/- along with

subsequent LPSC, without prejudice to the rights and

contentions of the petitioner to challenge the said

amount, within a fortnight from date or from

compliance of formalities, whichever is later.

In the event the WBSEDCL officials are

obstructed by respondent no.4 and/or his men and

agents in doing so, the WBSEDCL personnel shall be

at liberty to approach respondent no.3, the Officer-in-

Charge, Baguihati Police Station for police assistance

in that regard. If so approached, the respondent no.3

shall act on the server copy of this order and give such

assistance at the cost of the petitioner, if necessary

removing any hindrance or padlock, if put up by the

private respondent no.4 to the WBSEDCL personnel in

giving such connection.

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 with the requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)