Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Hanif Haque vs The West Bengal State Electricity ... on 30 March, 2023
30th March,
2023
(AK)
03
W.P.A 7255 of 2023
Hanif Haque
Vs.
The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company
Limited and others
Mr. Falguni Bandyopadhyay
Ms. Riya Ballav
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Mihir Kundu
...for the WBSEDCL.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the
petitioner is a cultivator and applied for a new electricity
connection in order to operate his submersible pump,
upon which the WBSEDCL, by a communication dated
January 31, 2023, indicated that the Techno Commercial
feasibility of the scheme is not viable as the total
estimated cost of the scheme is more than Two Lakh
Rupees.
It was further communicated that "so it is not
possible to do the work by departmental cost".
The said communication is also relied on by learned
counsel for the WBSEDCL, who also hands over a copy of
the relevant Office Order No.52 dated May 5, 2012, which
was relied on in the said communication of the
WBSEDCL, as well as an estimate for conversion of 8MTR
2
DP substation to 4-Pole substation & augmentation of
DTR 63KVA to DTR 100KVA and erection of service poles.
It is submitted that the total costs assessed for
constructing the substation necessary for giving the
electricity connection to the petitioner comes to about Rs.
2,65,319.65 p.
However, on instruction, learned counsel submits
that the WBSEDCL, keeping in view the economic
condition of the petitioner, is agreeable to waive the cost
of Rs.2 lakh and take only Rs.65,000/- from the
petitioner.
Upon a perusal of the communication-in-question
made by the WBSEDCL, which is annexed at page-35 of
the writ petition, it is seen that the same has relied on the
Office Order handed over by learned counsel for the
WBSEDCL.
In the said Office Order, Clauses 4.4.1 to 4.4.5 of
Regulation 46 of the WBERC as well as Clause 2.8(b) of
another Office Order have been relied on by the
WBSEDCL.
A cursory perusal of the said provisions indicate
that those provide for techno economic study in case the
feasibility of constructing a new substation is required to
be examined.
In such case, two options are envisaged under the
Regulations. One, that the earnest money paid by the
3
petitioner shall remain with the licensee, in which case
the licensee shall hold a techno economic study as
referred to in Regulation 4.4.1.Upon such consideration,
if it is found from the detailed report of such techno
economic feasibility study that it will not be feasible to
erect/commission the new substation, the licensee is
required to communicate such decision under Clause
4.4.6(b) within the period of specified in Clause 4.4.5 in
writing to the applicant and refund the earnest money
along with interest.
It is further stipulated that in the event the earnest
money is taken back by the applicant, no such techno
economic study will be undertaken and earnest money
will be refund.
It is required to be considered in the matter as to
what is the exact interplay between the provisions of the
Regulations as indicated above, which have been relied on
by the WBSEDCL, vis-à-vis Section 43 of the Electricity
Act, 2003, read in conjunction with Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
For such consideration, judgment is reserved in the
matter.
It is made clear that since factual aspects have not
been disputed as such and all the relevant documents are
mostly on record, no affidavits are being directed to be
4
filed. It will be deemed that the allegations made in the
writ petition have not been admitted by the respondents.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
