[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Ms. Hsieh Meek Kim vs The Calcutta Electricity Supply ... on 1 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)
ORIGINAL SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao
W.P.O. No. 296 of 2025
Ms. Hsieh Meek Kim
Versus
The Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd.
(CESC Ltd.) & Ors.
With
W.P.O. No. 819 of 2025
Mr. Niket Saraf & Anr.
Versus
CESC Limited & Ors.
Mr. Saumyen Datta
Mr. Bidish Ghosh
Mr. Tapan Sil
Mr. A. Bhar
.....For the petitioner in WPO/296/2025
and the respondent no. 6 in
WPO/819/2025.
2
Ms. Susmita Biswas Chowdhury
... For the State in WPO/296/2025.
Mr. Soumabho Ghosh
Mr. Varun Kothari
Mr. Nikunj Berlia
Mrs. Urvashi Jain
Mrs. Arfa Jabeen
.....For the respondent nos. 6&7 in
WPO No. 296/2025 and for
petitioner in WPO/819/2025.
Ms. Sukla Das Chandra
... For the State in
WPO/819/2025.
Mr. Subir Sanyal
Mr. Soham Sanyal
.....For CESC in
both the writ petitions.
Hearing Concluded On : 28.11.2025
Judgment on : 01.12.2025
Krishna Rao, J.:
1. The petitioner in WPO No. 296 of 2025 has filed the writ application
praying for a direction upon the respondents to give electric connection
in the flats of the petitioner though a Low Tension connection on usual
payment in the residential-cum-commercial apartments, situated
within the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in holding No. 63, Rafi
Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata - 700016. One Prabha Devi Saraf, the
private respondent no. 7 herein is having 50% right of ownership along
with two other persons jointly having rest 50% of ownership.
2. The petitioner has purchased the entire share of Prabha Devi Saraf in
the two (2) flats being Flat Nos. 4 and 5 at the first floor by way of
registered conveyance deed in the year 2021. One Niket Saraf, the
private respondent no. 6 claiming himself to be the son of the private
respondent no. 7, continues to function as caretaker and manager of
the affairs of the said apartment. The entirety of the said apartment
receives electricity though High Tension Commercial line (HT-COMM
line) provided by the CESC Ltd., the respondent no. 1 herein. The flats
do not have individual meters, instead the electricity is provided though
sub-meters from High Tension Commercial line provided in the said
apartment, which the respondent nos. 6 and 7 are currently in-charge
of the same.
3. Mr. Saumyen Datta, Learned Advocate representing the petitioner
submits that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the
respondent nos. 6 and 7 regarding the payments of electricity and other
amenities. The respondent no. 6 and 7 stopped the electric connection
of the two flats of the petitioner. The petitioner has applied for grant of
a new connection and new meter in her name exclusively before the
respondent no. 1 on 19th October, 2024 through online portal of the
respondent no. 1. The petitioner has received a communication from
the respondent no. 5 on behalf of the respondent no. 1 on 9th
November, 2024 wherein the application filed by the petitioner for grant
of new connection was rejected on the ground that there already exists
a HT Line at the said premises.
4. Mr. Datta submits that despite of payment of entire electricity bills, the
respondent nos. 6 & 7 has deliberately withheld the electricity bills
since the month of February, 2025, and despite of repeated requests,
the respondent nos. 6 & 7 started demanding arbitrary amounts
without raising any proper electricity bill. He submits that there is a
disagreement between the petitioner and the respondent nos. 6 & 7
over the sum of payment of the maintenance and utility charges,
though the petitioner has paid electricity consumption charges till the
month of March, 2025. Despite payment of the electrical charges, the
respondent nos. 6 & 7 has disconnected the electric supply of two flats
of the petitioner on 18th March, 2025 at 07.00 p.m. without any prior
notice to the petitioner. Immediately, the petitioner has served a notice
to the respondent no. 6 on 19th March, 2025, requesting for restoration
of electric connection but the respondent nos. 6 & 7 failed to restore the
electric connection.
5. Mr. Soumabha Ghosh, Learned Advocate representing the respondent
nos. 6 and 7 submits that the petitioner is liable to pay monthly rent,
parking charges, maintenance charges, utility charges and electric
charges for the occupation of the said property. He submits that the
respondent no. 6 is responsible for maintaining and managing the said
premises and had duly raising bills on the petitioner as well as the
others for rent, parking fees, maintenance charges, utility charges,
electric charges as applicable.
6. Mr. Ghosh submits that the petitioner is habitual defaulter in
payments of bills raised by the respondent nos. 6 & 7. Time and again,
the respondent nos. 6 & 7 had to issue demand notices for the
petitioner for payment of the outstanding dues. The premises receive
electricity through a single HT Commercial Line in the name of the
respondent no. 6 provided by the respondent no.1. The occupants of
the said premises do not have individual meters, instead the electricity
is provided through sub-meters from the HT Commercial Line provided
in the said unit. He submits that the respondent no. 7 is the designated
agent of the supply company and is legally responsible for ensuring
timely payments. The respondent no. 7 used to raise electricity bills on
the petitioner by calculating the meters reading as shown in their sub-
meter multiplied with the calculated applicable unit rate. The
respondent no. 7 says that from the month of March, 2024, the
petitioner failed to pay the dues to the respondent no. 7 as per the bill
raised by the respondent no.7.
7. Mr. Ghosh submits that till the month of May, 2025, an amount of Rs.
2,33,342/- was due and payable by the petitioner being the electricity
charges, utility charges, maintenance charges and parking charges. He
further submits that the petitioner has also failed to maintain the
adequate security deposit and there is a shortfall of Rs. 85,000/- for
the security deposit. He submits that as the petitioner failed to pay the
outstanding dues inspite of several requests, the respondent no. 6 and
7 have initiated a Civil Suit before the Learned 5th Bench, City Civil
Court at Calcutta being Money Suit No. 438 of 2025 praying for
recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,18,342/- along with interest @ 18% per
annum.
8. Mr. Ghosh submits that the petitioner is defaulter in paying the
outstanding dues and to avoid make payment, has applied for grant of
new separate Low Tension supply but the same cannot be provided as
there is an existing HT Commercial line to the said premises and if a
separate LT Line is provided, that would amount to splitting of load on
the said premises which is not permissible.
9. By an order dated 24th September, 2025, this Court directed the
respondent no. 6 and 7 to restore the electricity connection to the
petitioner within 72 hours from the date of the order. The petitioner is
directed to continue to make payments to the respondent no. 6 and 7
based on the reading of the sub-meters assigned to the petitioner. This
Court directed the officials of the CESC to inspect the premises within
96 hours from the date of order and if it is found that during the
inspection of the electricity has not been restored, the CESC officials
shall disconnect the supply registered in the name of the respondent
no. 7.
10. In compliance of the order, the officials of the CESC has visited the
premises and found that the electric connection has not been restored
and accordingly on 13th October, 2025, the HT supply of the
respondent no. 7 was disconnected with the intimation to the
respondent no. 7. After the disconnection, the respondent nos. 6 and 7
have filed a writ application being WPO No. 819 of 2025 praying for a
direction upon the respondent nos. 1 to 5 i.e. the CESC Limited and its
officials for restoration of HT electricity connection standing in the
name of the respondent no. 7 (petitioner no. 1 in WPO No. 819 of 2025).
11. The petitioner has submitted a chart with regard to the proof of
payments and submits that since the month of August, 2024 till the
month of March, 2025, the petitioner has paid the electricity charges.
By refereeing the said chart, it is submitted that an amount of Rs.
3,236/- is lying in excess with the respondent no. 7.
12. This Court finds that there is a disputed question of fact with regard to
the payment of outstanding dues by the petitioner to the respondent
no. 7. The respondent no. 6 filed a Civil Suit against the petitioner for
recovery of the outstanding amount against the petitioner. As the
respondent no. 7 failed to comply with the order passed by this Court
dated 24th September, 2025 by not providing the electricity to the
petitioner, the respondent no. 1 and its officials have disconnected the
HT electric connection of the respondent no. 7 on 13th October, 2025.
13. The CESC Ltd. has provided the details of pending dues against the
respondent no. 7 wherein it reveals that the total outstanding is Rs.
7,36,387.54 plus DPS as applicable along with the Additional Security
Deposit of Rs. 1,64,654/- and Reconnection charges of Rs. 600/-.
14. Mr. Ghosh, Learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 6 & 7 submits
that the respondent no. 7 will pay 50% of the outstanding dues along
with additional security deposit and the reconnection charges to the
CESC Ltd. immediately and the balance 50% of the principal dues shall
be paid within 45 days in two (2) installments. He further submits that
the petitioner has already paid Rs. 3 lakhs to the respondent no. 1 and
will pay further Rs. 1 lakh by tomorrow.
15. In view of the above, the respondent no. 7 is directed to pay the 50% of
the total principal dues i.e. Rs. 3,68,194/- and Rs. 1,64,654/- being
the Additional Security Deposit and Reconnection charges of Rs. 600/-
to the CESC Ltd. within 24 hours from date and the remaining balance
50% i.e. Rs.3,68,194/- of the total principal dues shall be paid in two
(2) equal installments within 45 days from date. The respondent no. 7
shall continue to pay the monthly electricity charges to the CESC Ltd.
as per the bill raised by the CESC Ltd. without any default. If the CESC
limited is found that the respondent no. 7 is in default in paying the
current monthly electric charges as well as the 50% of the total
principal dues, the CESC Ltd. shall immediately disconnect the HT
Commercial connection of the respondent no. 7.
16. With regard to outstanding dues of the petitioner, the same is the
subject-matter of the Civil Suit pending before the Learned Civil Court
between the respondent nos. 6 and 7 and the petitioner, thus disputed
question of fact cannot be decided by this Court. This Court by an
order dated 24th September, 2025, directed the respondent nos. 7 for
restoration of the electric connection of the petitioner but till date, the
respondent nos. 6 and 7 have not restored the said electric connection,
accordingly, the respondent nos. 6 and 7 directed to restore the electric
connection of the petitioner within 24 hours when the respondent no. 1
restored the electric connection of the respondent no. 7. The petitioner
is directed to pay the electricity charges to the respondent no. 7
continuously without any default as per demand raised by the
respondent no. 7. The remaining dispute shall be divided by the
Learned Civil Court in its own merit without any influence of any
observation made in this order.
17. WPO No. 296 of 2025 and WPO No. 819 of 2025 are disposed of.
(Krishna Rao, J.)
