Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pradip Kumar Sha vs The Chairman on 27 June, 2022
27.06.2022
Court No.32
Avijit Mitra
FMA 2078 of 2015
with
IA No. CAN 3 of 2022
Pradip Kumar Sha
Versus
The Chairman, West Bengal Electricity
Distribution Company Limited & ors.
Mr. Sankar Prashad Dalapati,
Mr. Satyajit Mahata,
Mr. Safik Dewan,
Ms. Tanusree Ghosh
...for the applicant
Mr. Rudranil De,
Mr. Ziaul Haque,
Mr. Himadri Kumar Mahata
....for the appellant/writ petitioner
Mr. Srijan Nayek,
Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee
....for the WBSEDCL.
Records reveal that the writ petition being W.P. 16015
(W) of 2014 was dismissed by an order dated 24 th February,
2015. The said order has been set aside in the appeal being
FMA 2078 of 2015 on 10th June, 2022. In connection with
the said appeal, now an application has been filed by one
Pradip Kumar Sha inter alia praying for recalling of the
order dated 10th June, 2022.
Mr. Dalapati, learned advocate appearing for the
applicant submits that the applicant filed an application for
addition of party in the writ petition. There is no order on
record that the said application was allowed. However, the
applicant in the said application being Pradip Kumar Sha
was granted an opportunity of hearing, as would be explicit
from the order dated 24th February, 2015. As such, the
applicant ought to have been granted an opportunity of
hearing when the appeal was finally heard and disposed of
by the order dated 10th June, 2022.
Indisputably, the applicant was not a formal party to
the writ petition and consequently he was also not a party to
the present appeal. Irrespective of such defects, we invited
Mr. Dalapati to advance his arguments on the merits of the
matter.
He argues that the appellant/writ petitioner obtained
the order dated 10th June, 2022 by suppressing material
facts. The veracity of the documents annexed to the writ
petition is also doubtful.
Mr. Dalapati submits that the applicant is the owner
of the concerned plot no.4041 and he is enjoying electricity
connection through an electric meter installed in his name
in the said plot of land. The appellant is neither the owner
nor the occupier of the said plot of land and as such, the
judgment delivered in the case of Abhimanyu Mazumder Vs.
The Superintending Engineer, reported in AIR 2011 Cal 64
has no manner of application in the present case and in
view thereof the order dated 10 th June, 2022 needs to be
recalled.
Mr. De, learned advocate appearing for the appellant
disputes such contention of Mr. Dalapati and submits that
the concerned land is a vested land and he is occupying the
same. He submitted an application to the competent
authority for grant of long term settlement in respect of the
said land and such application is still pending.
Answering our query Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate
appearing for the WBSEDCL submits that in terms of the
order passed on 10th June, 2022 steps have already been
taken to grant new electricity connection to the appellant
upon installing a new electric meter on the concerned plot of
land.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and considered the materials on record.
It appears that there is a dispute as regards
ownership and possession of the concerned plot of land
between the applicant herein and the appellant. We have
not gone into such dispute in the present appeal. We have
made it clear in the order dated 10 th June, 2022 that the
grant of such electricity connection would not create any
right or equity in favour of the appellant over the concerned
plot of land. In view thereof, we do not find any reason to
recall the order dated 10 th June, 2022 and the present
recalling application being IA No. CAN 3 of 2022 is
dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
