Coochbehar Roller Flour Mills Ltd. And Anr. vs WBSEDCL And Ors.

Petitioner No.1 being a Private Limited Company and the petitioner No.2, an employee of the said company have filed the instant application under

Article 226 of the Constitution mainly against the respondent No.1, WBSEDCL and respondent No.5, one Vikash Toshniwal alleging inter alia that

respondent No.1 in collusion with respondent No.5 has refused to provide commercial electrical connection in favour of the petitioner No.1 to run a

Roller Flour Mills at Coochbehar.

On perusal of the application it is found that by virtue of a deed of lease of 21 years, the petitioner No.1 got possession over the premises in question

to run a flour mill. The said lease has expired in the year 2008. However, the possession could not be recovered as yet by respondent No.5 due to

pendency of certain suits between the parties. In one of such suits being Title Suit No.50 of 2017, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Coochbehar passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo without changing nature and character of the suit property.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner has laid stress on the observation made by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Coochbehar while passing

the order of status quo on 31st October, 2017 wherein the learned Judge observed, ""....................they are in possession and have acquired a right of

permanent lease over the property situated on the suit land and such entitled to get an order of injunction."" It is also observed in the said order,

.............admittedly it is found that the plaintiff is still in possession........."". Thus, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is

in possession of the disputed property under lease or holding over, the petitioner No.1 Company is entitled to enjoy electricity till his lawful termination

by due process of law.

Learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 WBSEDCL, on the other hand submits that since the civil suit is pending between the parties, the

petitioner simply could have prayed for electrical connection in the suit premises in the said suit and obtained such order from the competent Civil

Court as efficacious relief lies with the Civil Court the petitioner cannot invoke Article 226 of the Constitution.

Learned Advocate for the Private Respondent No.5 has echoed the submission made by the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent No.1 so

far as the maintainability of the instant writ petition. It is also submitted by her that the petitioner is not in possession of the suit property. No kind of

business or factory is running thereon only to frustrate the interest of the respondent No.5, the petitioner has prayed for electrical connection.

There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner No.1 was the lessee in respect of the disputed property. Secondly, the said lease has already been

expired in the year 2008. Thirdly, the petitioner has not delivered possession of the disputed property under lease in favour of respondent No.5 as yet.

On the other hand, he filed Title Suit No.50 of 2017 for declaration and permanent injunction. In the said order it is observed by the Trial Court that the

petitioner is still in possession of the property in question.

The question that arises in the instant writ petition is as to whether a petitioner who is in possession of property in question is entitled to get electricity

till he is evicted by due process of law. The question was dealt with by this Court in Sk. Asgar Versus State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in

(2010) 4 CHN 191 (Cal) where a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order in favour of the petitioner directing the respondent No.1 to provide

electricity. In the said decision also reference has been made about existence of a suit between the parties. Subsequently in W.P. No.25482 (W) of

2010 (Sk. Samsud Doha -Vs.- The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors.) dated 2nd May, 2012, a Coordinate Bench of this

Court allowed a party to a partition suit to obtain electrical connection in the premises in question.

I have already recorded that it is not disputed that the petitioner is in possession over the suit property. So long he is in possession and not evicted by

due process of law, he is entitled to get electrical connection, be it domestic or commercial.

For the reasons stated above, the instant writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.1 to provide electrical connection in favour of

petitioner No.1 on his complying with necessary requirements under the law for getting such electrical connection.

There shall be no order as to costs.