Shri Tapan Kumar Nath vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 743 Cal

21
ss/jks
         25.01.2023
                                         MAT 1158 of 2022
                                                With
                                            CAN 1 of 2022
                                       Shri Tapan Kumar Nath
                                                 Vs.
                                   The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                      Mr. Supriya Ranjan Ghosh
                      Mr. J. Mukherjee
                                                             ... ... for the appellant
                      Ms. Sutapa Sanyal
                      Ms. Susnita Saha
                                                            ... ... for the State
                      Ms. Mitali Bhattacharya
                                            ... ... for the respondent nos.2 to 4

The writ petitioner (appellant herein) is aggrieved

with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8th July,

2022 whereby WPA 11943 of 2022 has been disposed of

with certain directions.

Appellant had filed the writ petition with the plea

that the appellant along with his two brothers is living

jointly in the residential property recorded in the name of

their deceased mother Sabitri Bala Nath without

demarcation and partition. Further plea was raised that

there was some difference of opinion amongst the

brothers in respect of the consumption of electricity and

periodical bill payments, therefore appellant had applied

for new electricity connection in the petitioner's occupied

portion.

Since no proper action on the said application was

taken, therefore appellant had prayed for a direction to

the respondents to effect supply of electricity at the

occupied portion of the premises of the appellant.

Learned Single Judge has disposed of the petition

granting liberty to the petitioner to apply either for

transfer of name in respect of the existing electricity

meter in the name of the appellant with appropriate way

leave certificate/consent from his co-owner or in the

alternative to apply for a new connection jointly with the

co-owners/or to apply for a new connection with such

consent/way leave certificate as mentioned in the order.

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is

that in terms of Section 43 of the Electricity Act and in

view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the

matter of Abhimanyu Mazumdar Vs. Superintending

Engineer and another, reported at AIR 2011 Cal 64

appellant has right of supply of electricity which cannot

be denied.

Learned counsel for the respondent electricity

company has submitted that the meter exists in the

name of the mother of the appellant who died and,

therefore the appellant is required to take the consent of

all other brothers and that no partition of property has

taken place.

Learned counsel for the State has also objected to

the prayer by submitting that the co-owners have not

been impleaded in the writ petition and consent of the co-

owners is necessary.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

Undisputedly, no partition of the property in

question has taken place amongst the brothers and the

plea of the appellant in the writ petition itself is that the

premises is without demarcation and partition. Though in

the writ petition the petitioner has claimed separate

electricity connection in respect of the alleged occupied

portion of the premises but the other two brothers have

not been impleaded in the petition.

It has rightly been pointed out by learned counsel

for the respondents that there is no denial of supply of

electricity to the appellant but the only issue is in respect

of compliance of formalities for taking the electricity

connection in such a joint premises.

In view of this the appellant is not entitled to the

benefit of the Full Bench judgment in the case of

Abhimanyu Mazumdar (supra).

Considering the entire factual position of the case,

we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has

rightly disposed of the petition by granting liberty to the

petitioner as mentioned above.

Hence, no case for interference in the order of the

learned Single Judge is made out.

Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Connected application is also dismissed.

(Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.)

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)