Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Urmila Shaw vs Cesc Limited And Another on 19 May, 2022
AD. 12.
May 19, 2022.
MNS.
WPA No. 6999 of 2022
Urmila Shaw
Vs.
CESC Limited and another
Mr. Bidyut Kumar Halder,
Mr. Indranit Halder
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Lal,
Ms. Sumouli Sarkar
...for the CESC Limited.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that, in view of the ratio laid down in Rama Shankar
Pandey Vs. CESC Limited, passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench and reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 9644
and the unreported judgement rendered by another
co-ordinate Bench on January 31, 2018 in WP
1927(W) of 2018 (Samir Das Vs. CESC Limited and
another), a tenant is entitled to independent
electricity connection in his own name. As such, the
ground of refusal by the CESC Limited in the case of
the present petitioner to give new electricity
connection is not tenable in the eye of law.
Learned counsel appearing for the CESC
Limited submits that both the judgements cited by
learned counsel for the petitioner were considered by
a third Single Judge in WPA 13504 of 2021
(Chandrakala Nayak) dated December 8, 2021,
wherein, upon consideration of two subsequent
Division Bench judgments, it was observed that the
right even of a tenant to get electricity supply in his
own name is subject to Regulation 14 of the West
Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery
of Expenditure for Providing New Connection)
Regulations, 2013 (2013 Regulation).
Learned counsel further submits that Clause
6.0 of Regulation 56 of 2013 Regulation clearly
provides a limitation period of 90 days for filing the
grievance even before the Grievance Redressal
Officer (GRO).
Hence, since the writ petition itself was filed
after 90 days of the cause of action, the remedy
sought by the petitioner is intended to get indirectly
what the petitioner cannot get directly under the
relevant statute.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply,
reiterates that the petitioner-tenant is without
electricity and the remedy of the petitioner should not
be shut out altogether.
Upon considering the rival submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the
proposition as regards the tenant's entitlement to get
a new electricity connection is no longer res integra,
as is the proposition that such a right is subject to the
Regulations framed by the West Bengal Electricity
Regulatory Commission (WBERC) under the aegis of
the Electricity Act, 2003 (2003 Act).
Since the CESC Limited took specific
objections on both scores - first, the apprehended
splitting of load and secondly, the imminent danger
and risk if a second connection is given at the
premises and, keeping in view the fact that the writ
petition itself was filed beyond 90 days from the
cause of action, it would not be appropriate to grant
the remedy sought by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. Even referring the matter
to the GRO after the expiry of the limitation period
would be in contravention of the extant Regulations.
However, in the event the petitioner has an
independent right of getting electricity connection
from the landlord/owner of the premises, it will be
open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate
forum for getting such relief.
With the aforesaid observations, WPA No.
6999 of 2022 is dismissed.
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.)
