Paniram Barman vs Assam Power Distribution Company ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2784 Gua

                                                                                     Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010132862021




                             THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : WP(C)/4307/2021

            PANIRAM BARMAN
            S/O SRI RAKHAL BARMAN
            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PACHIM DHUPGURI, PO BONDA, PS NOONMATI,
            GUWAHATI 781026, KAMRUP (M) ASSAM



            VERSUS

            ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD AND 2 ORS
            REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, 4TH FLOOR, BIJULEE BHAWAN,
            PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI 781001

            2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
            ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED
             4TH FLOOR BIJULEE BHAWAN
             PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001

            3:SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
             NARENGI ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION
            APDCL LAR FORESTGATE
             GUWAHATI 78102
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B M DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

10-11-2021

Heard Mr. B. M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Standing counsel, APDCL for all the respondent Page No.# 2/2

Nos. 1 to 3.

It is submitted by the petitioner that though an application has been filed for impleadment of the name of the landlord of the house in which the petitioner is presently residing as tenant, but the same was not registered as there were some defects in it.

Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that those defects have been cured two days back.

From the perusal of the order dated 30.01.2021 passed in Title Execution No. 68/2017 (Annexure-2 to this petition), it is seen that the electricity connection in the premise occupied by the petitioner was in the name of the elder brother of the concerned landlord who is also not a party in the present proceeding.

Mr. Choudhury, learned Standing counsel, APDCL on the other hand by placing the judgment and order dated 26.07.2017 passed in Title Suit No. 180/2016 (Paniram Barman Vs. Mintu Roy @ Mahes Roy and 3 others) submits before the Court that the respondent APDCL was not a party in the said Suit preferred by the petitioner though in the order dated 30.01.2021 passed in Title Execution No. 68/2017 by the learned Court of Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati directed the petitioner to take an electricity connection in his name in the decreetal premise and to adjust the cost of such connection in future rent wherein the present respondent APDCL was directed to provide a separate electricity connection to the decreetal premise on being applied by the concerned decreeholder/petitioner herein subject to proper verification and documentation as per the norms.

It is seen from the judgment and order dated 26.07.2017 passed in said Title Suit No. 180/2016 (Annexure-1 to this petition) preferred by the petitioner that the respondent APDCL was not a party in the said Suit.

List this matter for motion on 22.11.2021 along with the impleadment application filed by the petitioner.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant