Sheikh Aminuddin vs West Bengal State Electricity ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3605 Cal

AD-17
Ct No.09
19.05.2023
TN
                               WPA No. 8802 of 2023

                             Sheikh Aminuddin
                                    Vs.
              West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company
                             Limited and others

             Mr. Sarwar Jahan,
             Ms. Shaila Afrin,
             Mr. David Fransis
                                                 .... for the petitioner

             Ms. Suvasree Ghose
                                                .... for the WBSEDCL

             Mr. Biswajit Sen,
             Mr. Sohhom Sau
                                        .... for the added respondents

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that

the petitioner seeks to take an industrial connection of

about 6000 watt for the purpose of operating a lathe

factory as well as welding workshop.

However, it is contended that the private

respondents, due to certain political reasons, are

objecting to such connection being taken. Although

the private respondents have contended that the area

is a residential location, there are several other

existing industrial connections of similar nature

and/or of higher wattage in the near vicinity of the

premises where the electricity connection is sought by

the petitioner.

It is further argued that the purpose for which

the connection is sought is not an obnoxious,

hazardous or polluting industry and, as such, the

ratio of the judgment cited by the private respondents

is not applicable.

Learned counsel appearing for the private

respondents submits that the writ petition is bad for

non-joinder of all objectors and/or co-sharers to the

property.

Secondly, in a partition suit pending between

the parties and others, an order of status quo has

been passed.

Thirdly, the area is a close-knit area and has a

dense population. Being a residential location, the

industrial connection ought not to be given to the said

area, since the same would give rise to electricity

pollution and fire hazards.

Learned counsel for the private respondents

also places reliance on Delhi Pradesh Citizen Council

vs. Union of India and another, reported at (2006) 6

SCC 305, where the Supreme Court had gone on to

observe that certain polluting substances and

obnoxious, hazardous, inflammable, non-compatible

processes would not be permitted in residential areas.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties,

several disputed questions of facts are seen to be

involved in the present matter.

First, whether the petitioner is entitled to take

electricity connection of an industrial nature in the

residential area and/or whether such connection shall

contravene any law of the land.

Secondly, whether other industrial connections

of similar nature have been given in the said area,

which would entitle the petitioner also to take such

connection.

Thirdly, whether all the objectors have been

impleaded in the dispute.

That apart, the exact nature of the business for

which the petitioner seeks the industrial connection,

in the context of Delhi Pradesh Citizen Council (supra),

has also to be ascertained on facts. For ascertaining

such questions, detailed evidence is required to be

looked into and hearing ought to be given to the

parties.

However, the Writ Court, within its limited

scope, is handicapped from deciding such disputed

questions of fact on taking evidence.

Since the law envisages that objection as to

laying of electricity lines are to be referred to the

District Magistrates, it would only be proper if the

present dispute is also decided by the concerned

District Magistrate.

Accordingly, WPA No. 8802 of 2023 is disposed

of by granting liberty to the petitioner to carry the

dispute as raised in the present writ petition to the

concerned District Magistrate having territorial

jurisdiction in the area. If so approached, the District

Magistrate shall give adequate opportunity of hearing

to the petitioner, the respondents as well as all other

objectors and interested parties and upon giving such

hearing, decide the disputes between the parties in

accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. It is

expected that the entire exercise shall be completed

within eight weeks from the date of such reference

being made to the concerned District Magistrate.

It is made clear, however, that this court has

not entered into the merits of the allegations raised by

the parties against each other and it will be open to

the District Magistrate to decide all issues

independently without being influenced in any

manner by any of the observations made herein.

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.)