Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sanjay Jaiswal vs Cesc Limited And Another on 9 September, 2022
S/L. 61.
September 9, 2022.
MNS.
WPA No. 20497 of 2022
Sanjay Jaiswal
Vs.
CESC Limited and another
Mr. Bidyut Halder,
Mr. Indranil Halder
... for the petitioner.
Ms. Sumouli Sarkar
...for the CESC Limited.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner applied for new electricity
connection for the first time but the same was
refused by the CESC Limited vide communication
dated May 23, 2022 (Annexure P/1 at page 9 of
the writ petition) on the ground that more than
one application in favour of the petitioner at the
above premises was under process.
Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner candidly submits that the wife of the
petitioner had previously applied for an
independent electricity connection, which had
been rejected on the ground of splitting of load.
When the same was challenged before this
Court, the writ petition was dismissed by this
Court, inter alia, on the ground that the limitation
for challenging the decision of the CESC Limited
on the ground of splitting of load had expired.
However, it is submitted that the petitioner
and his family are without electricity in the
premises and, as such, the rights of the petitioner
as a tenant are being grossly hampered.
Learned counsel also places reliance on a
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Dilip (Dead) through LRS Vs. Satish and others
{2022 Live Law (SC) 570}, wherein it was
observed that electricity is a basic amenity of
which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity
cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of
failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection
certificate. All that the electricity supply authority
is required to examine, it was held in the said
judgment, is whether the applicant for electricity
connection is in occupation of the premises-in-
question.
There cannot be any quarrel with such
proposition, which is well-settled in law. However,
the facts of the present case do not match exactly
with those of the cited decision and the fact-
situation in which such ratio was laid down by the
Supreme Court.
Even if the petitioner, as a tenant, has a
right to get electricity connection, in view of the
rejection of the previous application for the self-
same reason in respect of the same premises by
the petitioner's spouse on the ground of splitting
of load, in the absence of any allegation or
apprehension of their relation inter se being
strained, the petitioner's identical application was
rightly rejected by the CESC Limited. Such
ground still exists and the petitioner has not yet
been able to show that the circumstances have
changed.
Hence, the refusal of the CESC Limited
was justified and ought not to be interfered with
by the writ court.
Accordingly, WPA No. 20497 of 2022 is
dismissed without any order as to costs.
However, nothing in this order shall
prevent the petitioner from approaching the
appropriate forum (Controller/Civil Court or
otherwise) for adequate relief with regard to not
getting electricity supply from the existing
electricity connection at the premises. If such an
approach is made, the said forum/court shall
decide the issue independently without being
prejudiced in any manner by the present rejection
of the writ petition.
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.)
