Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk. Firdous Islam vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 7 March, 2022
AD. 19.
March 7, 2022.
MNS.
(Through Video Conference)
WPA No. 18865 of 2021
Sk. Firdous Islam
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and others
Md. Mokaram Hossain,
Mr. Salauddin Ahamed,
Mr. Saumen Gayen,
Mr. Sandipan Maity
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Santanu Mitra,
Mr. Ranjit Rajak
...for the State-respondents.
Mr. Sumit Kumar Panja,
Mr. Sujit Sankar Koley
...for the WBSEDCL.
Mr. Sagarmoy Ghosh
...for the respondent nos. 5 and 6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, despite the petitioner having complied with all
formalities, the West Bengal State Electricity
Distribution Company Limited (in short 'WBSEDCL')
is not being able to give electricity connection due to
obstruction created by the private respondent nos. 5
and 6.
Learned counsel for the WBSEDCL agrees
with such contention and places reliance on an
application made before the police authorities for
adequate police assistance in such regard.
Learned counsel appearing for the private
respondent nos. 5 and 6 specifically controverts the
contentions of the petitioner and submits that the
private respondent nos. 5 and 6, being the lessors of
the petitioner, have instituted an eviction suit against
the petitioner, which is now sub judice.
It is further submitted that the writ petitioner
has also filed a suit of his own, inter alia, for
declaration that the petitioner is a monthly tenant and
seeking a decree for declaration that the writ
petitioner has a right to take an electric connection
over his tenanted portion.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the
private respondent nos. 5 and 6 that the petitioner
prayed in the said suit simultaneously for declaration
that he has to right to take electricity even without
due process of law and on the other hand for
permanent injunction against the defendant nos. 1 to
3 so that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 (including the
present private respondents) may not disconnect
electric connection over the property-in-question.
It is submitted that such prayers are mutually
contradictory. It is further submitted that, in the
written statement filed by the WBSEDCL in
connection with the suits, the WBSEDCL has taken a
specific stand that there is already an existing
connection at the premises-in-question.
Learned counsel appearing for the WBSEDCL
reiterates that the WBSEDCL has no objection to the
petitioner having electricity connection at the
premises, of course, subject to compliance of all
formalities by the petitioner. It is further submitted
that apparently the private respondent nos. 5 and 6,
as the owners of the premises, are at present
enjoying electric connection at the said property. As
such, there is no bar in the petitioner taking an
independent connection in the petitioner's own name
from the existing meter board position.
It is evident from the materials on record that
the petitioner and the private respondent nos. 5 and
6 have filed counter suits against each other. The
private respondent nos. 5 and 6, by filing their suit for
eviction, have admitted the settled possession of the
writ petitioner in respect of the premises-in-question.
Under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003,
as settled by several judgments of this court, a
person in settled possession of a property is entitled
to have electricity connection in his own name in the
said property, unless there are any other legal
impediments in doing so.
In the present case, even admittedly, the writ
petitioner is a lessee. The eviction suit against the
petitioner is sub judice as yet, thereby sustaining the
locus standi of the petitioner, as an occupant of the
premises, to have electric connection in the
petitioner's own name, until and unless the petitioner
is evicted by due process of law.
Hence, there is no justification whatsoever for
the obstruction put up by the private respondent nos.
5 and 6 in such connection being given to the
petitioner.
In such view of the matter, WPA No. 18865 of
2021 is allowed, thereby directing the WBSEDCL to
give electricity connection in the petitioner's own
name at the premises-in-question as per the
petitioner's application with a week from date.
In the event any obstruction is raised by the
private respondent nos. 5 and 6 and/or their men and
agents in so doing, the WBSEDCL personnel will be
at liberty to approach the Inspector-in-Charge of
Chandannagar Police Station (respondent no. 3) to
grant adequate police assistance for such purpose at
the cost of the petitioner.
If so approached, the respondent no. 3 shall
act on a written communication of the learned
Advocates for the parties, coupled with a server copy
of this order, without insisting upon prior production
of a certified copy thereof and grant such assistance
as required for the limited purpose, as indicated
above.
If any padlock or other hindrance is affixed /
created in the WBSEDCL personnel having access to
the existing meter board position, where the
petitioner's connection will be given, it will be open to
the police authorities to break open such padlock for
the limited purpose of giving such connection.
Learned counsel for the State, on instruction,
submits that the police authorities shall extend all
possible help to the petitioner as per the direction of
this Court.
It is, however, clarified that such electricity
connection given to the petitioner shall not create any
special equity or right in favour of the petitioner apart
from the legal rights which the petitioner already has
in respect of the premises-in-question.
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.)
