Cesc Ltd vs Bidashi Das

THIS order shall dispose of Revision Petition No. 3457/07 and Revision Petition No. 809/07. The facts are taken from Revision Petition No. 3457/07.

THE present Revision Petition has been filed against the Order of the State Commission, West Bengal whereby the First Appeal filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed thereby affirming the order of the District Forum dated 22.8.2005.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent herein made an application to the Petitioner to provide a new electricity connection in his name in the tenanted portion of a premises. On the receipt of application the Petitioner got the premises inspected on 16.9.2004. During the inspection petitioner came to know that the aforesaid premises was in fact a ''basti'' where there are many rooms occupied by tenants and one such room had been occupied by the respondent. It was also noticed during the inspection that the respondent was getting electricity from the meter of one Samir Kumar who is stated to be landlord of the said premises and is registered consumer of the Petitioner. Similarly, other occupants of the small rooms were also having the electricity from the same meter of the landlord. Keeping in view the above facts in mind, Petitioner vide its letter dated 17.9.2004 expressed its inability to provide a new and separate meter in the occupied portion of the said premises for the respondent/complainant as need of the respondent for electricity was adequately being met by the meter that had already been installed.

AGGRIEVED by this the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. District Forum vide its Order dated 27.8 2005 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to provide a separate meter to the respondent for domestic purposes.

AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

A notice was issued to the respondent. As the notice issued to the Respondent was received back with the postal remarks which were illegible ''dasti'' notices were handed over to the Counsel for the petitioner for effecting ''dasti'' service on the respondent. The respondent was served by ''dasti'' service on 2.12.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner filed an affidavit to that effect. Notice for today''s hearing was issued on 7.12.2009. Respondent is not present despite service. Proceeded ex parte.

COUNSEL for the Petitioner contends that the Order passed by the State Commission run counter to five other orders passed by the State Commission of the same premises involving the same facts by which the complaints filed by the persons similarly placed have already been dismissed. The same are attached as annexure P-12 with the file. These orders were passed in SC Case No. 351/A/2005 and other similar orders dated 11.4.2007.

WE have gone through the order of the State Commission. We have also gone through orders Annexure P-12 and find that the State Commission has taken a contrary view to the orders passed in the aforesaid cases.

THIS apart the order passed by the State Commission runs counter to Regulation 19 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission of 2005 and Condition 3(a) of Conditions of Supply. The same reads as follows- "Installotion of Block Meters in extremely congested places like bastis market, etc., ''In bastis, market, etc., where it may not be possible to segregate one consumer from an adjacent consumer because of existence of a very large number of consumer in a relatively small premises, and where because of multiplicity of the wiring, of such a large number of consumers, there may arise fire and safety hazards, the licensee may effort supply of electricity to all the consumers/intending consumers through a suitable located common meter of adequate capacity to be known as a Block Meter."

Condition 3(a): "the licensee will decide whether a separate service will be given to each consumer on any premises or whether a supply to all consumer in any premises will be given through separate meters from a common service installed on the premises."

AS per Regulation 19 a separate meter in the tenanted portion of the premises which in a ''basti'' cannot be granted as it would overlook the safety norms and considerations as contemplated under law and particularly Chapter 4 of the Electricity Rules, 1956. Similarly, under Condition 3(a) of the Condition of Supply Act which is statutory, it has been left to the discretion of the licensee, i.e. the Petitioner to decide as to how supply is to be provided by it to a consumer in a premises. The State Commission by the directions issued has negated the regulations as well as the statutory conditions of supply.

SINCE the Order of the State Commission runs counter to Regulation 19 and Condition 3(a) aforementioned the same cannot be sustained. Order under Appeal is set aside. The complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no orders as to costs. Revision Petition stand disposed of accordingly.