Calcutta High Court
Ms. Hseih Meek Kim vs The Calcutta Electricity Supply ... on 24 September, 2025
Author: Kausik Chanda
Bench: Kausik Chanda
OD-3
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/296/2025
Ms. HSEIH MEEK KIM
VS
THE CALCUTTA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD(CESC Ltd.)
& ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA
Date : 24th September, 2025
Appearance:
Mr. Saumyen Datta, Adv.
Mr. Bidish Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. A. Bhar, Adv.
... for petitioner
Mr. Subir Sanyal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soham Sanyal, Adv.
...for CESC
Mr. Varun Kothari, Adv.
Mr. Nikunj Berlia, Adv.
Mrs. Urvashi Jain, Adv.
...for respondent nos.6&7
Ms. Susmita Biswas Chowdhury, Adv.
...for State
The Court : The affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner shall be
kept on record.
It is regrettable that, despite the Court's expectation for a
settlement to be reached between the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 6
and 7, it has been submitted today that no such settlement could be
achieved, notwithstanding the intervention of Mr. Soham Sanyal, learned
Advocate for the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited (CESC).
It appears that Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are the owners of the
building located at 63, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata-700016.
Subsequently, portions of the building have been sold by Respondent
Nos. 6 and 7 to various individuals, including the petitioner. It is
submitted before this Court that the petitioner also occupy a portion of
the premises as a tenant under Respondent Nos.6 and 7.
There is only one High Tension (HT) line provided by CESC to the
premises in question, with the relevant meter registered in the name of
Respondent No. 6. Other occupants of the building receive electricity
through respective sub-meters connected to the main meter.
It further appears that a dispute exists between the petitioner and
Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 concerning the payment of electricity charges,
rent, parking fees, and other maintenance costs.
This Court specifically directed CESC to examine the demand made
by Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 from the petitioner regarding electricity
charges.
The petitioner contends that he has paid Rs. 97,521/- to
Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 towards electricity bills. Respondent Nos. 6 and
7 submit that this amount has been adjusted against other dues,
including rent and parking charges.
The learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 relies upon a
judgment delivered by this Court on March 21, 2022, in WPA No. 4225 of
2022 (Mr. Dev Kumar Sharma vs. Mr. Srijan Nayak), to argue that the
dispute is private in nature and, therefore, a writ petition is not
maintainable.
This submission is liable to be rejected. Since CESC discharges a
public duty by providing electricity connections to consumers, and where
any deficiency occurs at the instance of even a private party, it falls
within the jurisdiction of the writ court to ensure that electricity
connection is provided to the person entitled thereto under the Electricity
Act, 2003 by CESC, if necessary, by moulding the relief.
It is an admitted fact before this Court that Respondent Nos. 6 and
7 have disconnected the petitioner's electricity line for non-payment of
charges as demanded by them.
I am of the view that Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 cannot deny the
petitioner an essential service such as electricity connection merely to
enforce recovery of their dues, including rent or parking charges.
It is also admitted that a civil suit for realization of rent and other
dues is already pending between the parties.
In view of the above, the electricity connection of the petitioner
must be restored. However, as indicated by CESC, a separate connection
in the petitioner's name cannot be provided since the entire premises
receives electricity through a single High-Tension supply. The learned
Advocate for CESC has submitted that a separate connection in the
petitioner's name is not feasible.
Therefore, I direct Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to restore the electricity
connection to the petitioner immediately and, in any event, within 72
hours from the date of this order.
Upon reconnection, the petitioner shall continue to make payments
to Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 based on the readings of the sub-meter
assigned to him.
The remedy with respect to other dues such as rent, maintenance
and parking charges lies before the civil courts.
The officials of CESC are directed to inspect the premises within 96
hours from the date hereof. If it is found during inspection that the
petitioner's electricity line has not been restored, the CESC officials shall
disconnect the supply registered in the name of Respondent No. 6.
CESC authorities shall file a report within one week after the
upcoming Puja vacation.
The writ petition shall be listed for hearing one week after the
ensuing Puja vacation.
(KAUSIK CHANDA, J.)
SN.
AR(CR)
