Smt. Anajna Samaddar vs Calcutta Electric Supply ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7845 Cal

28th November,

(AK)

W.P.A 19617 of 2018

Smt. Anajna Samaddar Vs.

Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation and others

Mr. Souurav Banerjee ...for the petitioner.

Mr. Om Narayan Rai Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee ...for the CESC Limited.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the

CESC Limited has discriminated against the petitioner

without any reasonable basis inasmuch as the

petitioner's request for a new individual electricity

connection for running the petitioner's shop has been

denied on the ground that other shop owners at the same

housing complex are enjoying electricity from two block

meters.

Learned counsel contends that such enjoyment of

electricity from a sub-meter, connected to a common

block meter, exposes the petitioner to the peril of

disruption of electricity supply due to non-payment by

other consumers.

Moreover, the petitioner seeks to increase the load

for the purpose of extending his business conducted from

the shop room, which is not possible if he enjoys

electricity from a sub-meter along with others from a

common block meter.

Learned counsel argues that Article 14 of the

Constitution of India is patently violated by the CESC

Limited inasmuch as the shop owners in a similarly-

placed adjacent building are enjoying independent and

individual electricity connections, whereas the petitioner

is being refused the same.

More importantly, it is argued by the petitioner, the

appellate tribunal of the West Bengal Housing Board has

been allotted the first floor of the same complex where the

petitioner is running his shop.

However, as opposed to the petitioner and the other

shop owners, the said appellate tribunal has been allotted

an individual and independent electricity connection in

the name of its executive engineer.

Learned counsel submits that the distinction sought

to be made out by the CESC Limited on the tariff being

different for public bodies is not sanctioned by law,

inasmuch as Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003

does not make any such distinction between private

individuals and public bodies and/or Government

organizations.

Learned counsel appearing for the CESC Limited

cites a coordinate Bench judgment of this court in CESC

Limited and another vs. Ombudsman and another reported

at 2022 SCC Online Cal 354.

It is submitted that, under similar circumstances,

on the writ petition of the CESC Limited, another shop

owner of the same complex as the present petitioner was

refused individual connection on the ground that block

meter was the applicable mode of granting electricity in

the said premises.

Learned counsel places reliance on the facts

narrated by the learned single Judge for strengthening

his argument that the factual scenario of the said case

was similar to the present.

It is further submitted, by placing reliance on the

affidavit-in-opposition, that the adjacent market complex

with which the petitioner claims parity, stands on a

different footing than the market complex where the

petitioner is running his shop.

First, the said adjacent building houses much less

number of shop rooms than the complex where the

petitioner is running his shop.

Secondly, it is submitted that the shop owners'

association of the present complex, where the petitioner's

shop is situated, had entered into an agreement with the

CESC Limited for providing electricity connection by block

meters, whereas, from the inception, the shop owners of

the other adjacent building have been enjoying individual

connections.

As such, it is submitted that the parity sought to be

drawn by the petitioner with the adjacent complex is not

available in law.

Learned counsel for the CESC Limited further places

reliance on the tariff order of the CESC Limited for the

year 2017-2018, a copy of which is handed over in court

today.

In serial no. 7 of the same, it has been mentioned

that public bodies have a different tariff scheme

applicable to them than general consumers.

Since the petitioner falls within the category of a

general consumer as opposed to a public body, whereas

the tribunal situated on the first floor of the complex is a

public body, the distinction made between the two by

giving independent electricity connection to the housing

board and charging different tariff is justified.

The rate slabs of the two categories of consumers, it

is submitted, are entirely different.

Learned counsel for the CESC Limited further

contends that the relevant regulation provides that the

Distribution Licensee has the discretion of giving

electricity supply by way of block meter in case of

bustees, market places, etc where several connections are

taken in close vicinity.

Hence, the CESC Limited, it is submitted, was

justified in insisting upon giving a block meter for

technical reasons as well.

A consideration of the submission of the parties

indicates that the premise on which the block meter is

being insisted upon by the CESC Limited is Clause 18 of

Regulation no. 53 of 2013 of the WBERC.

The said clause provides that in bustees, market

places etc., where it may not be possible to segregate one

consumer from an adjacent consumer because of

existence of a very large number of consumers in a

relatively small premises, and where because of

multiplicity of the wirings of such a large number of

consumers, there may arise fire and safety hazards, the

licensee may effect supply of electricity to all the

consumers/intending consumers through a suitably

located common meter of adequate capacity, to be known

as a Block Meter.

In the present case since, in the perception of the

CESC Limited, it is not technically feasible, keeping in

mind the fire and safety hazards, to give individual

electricity connections to each of the shop owners, it

cannot be said that there is gross discrimination on the

part of the CESC Limited between the petitioner and

other equally placed persons.

That apart, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel

for the CESC Limited, the parties to the agreement, being

the shop owners of the complex where the petitioner is

running his shop, are bound by the initial arrangement

made between them and the CESC Limited.

Even if the petitioner wants to deviate, it is not

feasible to do so, in view of all the other shop owners in

the same complex enjoying electricity from sub-meters,

connected to two common block meters.

Inasmuch as the first floor Housing Appellate

Tribunal is concerned, the CESC Limited is justified in

drawing a distinction between the same and the petitioner

on the ground that the former is a public body whereas

the petitioner is not.

The same justifies different tariff rates and

electricity supply being given by separate arrangements,

in the case of the petitioner by a block meter.

Moreover, although under Section 43 of the

Electricity Act 2003, the petitioner is entitled as a

consumer/intending consumer to get supply of electricity,

it is well within the authority of the Distribution Licensee

to reasonably distinguish between the petitioner and

other consumers on intelligible and reasonable grounds

insofar as the mode of giving such connection is

concerned.

In the present case, the line of distinction drawn

between the petitioner and the adjacent building shop

owners as well as the tribunal situated above are

sufficiently intelligible and cogent.

Although Section 2 (15) of the 2003 Act does not

make any distinction between public bodies and private

individuals inasmuch as the expression "consumer" is

concerned, the same does not have a bearing in the facts

of the present case.

Moreover, this court is bound by the coordinate

Bench judgment rendered in CESC Limited and another

Vs. Ombudsman and another (supra). The facts and

circumstances in the said case were similar to the present

one.

The respondent no.2 therein was an individual shop

owner in the Calcutta Greens Commercial Complex at

1050/2, Survey Park, Kolkata-700075, which is the same

complex where the petitioner is running his shop.

The application of the respondent no.2 for individual

connection, which had been allowed by the Ombudsman,

was set aside by the learned Single Judge.

In the said case, the same argument was made, on

which the Court held that the extant regulation, that is,

Regulation 18 as mentioned above, does not make a

distinction between old and new commercial complexes

and applies to both types equally.

In such view of the matter, since the distinction

sought to be drawn by the CESC Limited between the

petitioner and the others referred to by the petitioner is

justified, there is no scope of observing that there has

been a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India

on the party of the CESC Limited.

In any event, since all other shop owners at the

premises-in-question are enjoying electricity as per the

previous arrangement from sub-meters attached to two

block meters, there is no particular reason why the

petitioner, who is situated on a similar footing as the

other shop owners vis-à-vis the CESC Limited, should be

specially favoured with an individual connection, which

will also disrupt the safety and security of the premises

inasmuch as fire and electricity hazards are concerned.

As such, there is no scope of interference in the

present writ petition.

Accordingly, WPA 19617 of 2018 is dismissed on

contest without, however, any order as to costs.

Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite

formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)