Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arun Kumar Debnath vs West Bengal State Electricity ... on 22 March, 2022
AD. 28.
March 22, 2022.
MNS.
WPA No. 20816 of 2021
Arun Kumar Debnath
Vs.
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution
Company Limited and others
Mr. Shayak Chakraborty,
Ms. Sharmistha China
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Sumit Ray
...for the WBSEDCL.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that, despite there being no nexus of the petitioner
with the connection held previously in the name of his
father at different premises, which is not even
physically proximate to the premises in respect of
which electricity connection has now been sought,
the petitioner's application for new connection has
been refused by the West Bengal State Electricity
Distribution Company Limited (in short 'WBSEDCL')
on the ground of alleged nexus between the
petitioner and the default committed by the
petitioner's father in respect of such entirely different
premises.
Learned counsel appearing for the WBSEDCL
submits that by virtue of Clause- 13.9 of Regulation
46 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory
Commission, the WBSEDCL is entitled to recover
such dues within the entire area of supply of the
WBSEDCL, which covers all areas where the
WBSEDCL has jurisdiction to give electric supply.
In the present case, it is argued that the
petitioner had applied and obtained a new electricity
connection in respect of the other premises, where a
default was previously committed by the petitioner's
father (since deceased). Due to bona fide
inadvertence of the WBSEDCL, it is submitted, a new
electricity connection had been given to the petitioner
in such other premises without insisting on the
previous default being cleared in respect of the
father's meter at the same premises.
Subsequently, by a letter dated April 22, 2021
(Annexure - R-1 at page 10 of the affidavit-in-
opposition), the WBSEDCL had claimed the due
arrears from the petitioner in respect of the defaulting
meter. However, no such amount has been paid by
the petitioner; rather, the petitioner is now seeking a
new electricity connection, although in a different
premises but within the same "area of supply" of the
WBSEDCL as the defaulting meter. As such, it is
legitimate on the part of the WBSEDCL to claim prior
clearance of such outstanding dues of the petitioner's
father in respect of the other meter, before giving a
new electric connection, even at different premises
within the area of supply.
Learned counsel for the WBSEDCL also cites
a judgment reported at (1995) 2 Supreme Court
Cases 648 [Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity
Boad and another] in support of his contentions.
However, in reply, learned counsel for the
petitioner controverts the allegation that the new
premises, which has been purchased solely by the
petitioner, is situated immediately opposite to the
previous premises, where the default was allegedly
committed by the petitioner's father.
As such, it is reiterated that there is no 'nexus'
between the petitioner and the previous alleged
defaulting consumer (the petitioner's father) so far as
the new electric connection of the petitioner is
concerned.
Rather, it is contended that the petitioner has
cleared all previous dues in respect of the premises,
where the new electricity connection has been
sought by the petitioner.
It is also contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the present premises, in respect of
which the new electric connection has been sought,
is not situated within the "area of supply" of the
WBSEDCL, insofar as the previous defaulting meter
is concerned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also adds
that the term "area of supply", as used in Clause-
13.9 of Regulation 46 of the WBERC, has to be
construed in the general sense, that is, as the
immediate vicinity of the allegedly defaulting meter.
Hearing is concluded.
The matter is reserved for judgment.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
