Dipali Manna vs Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. & Ors

Md. Nizamuddin, J

Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent/electricity authority.

None appears on behalf of the private respondent inspite of service.

Affidavit of service has been filed in court.

It is the case of the petitioner that she has applied for connection of electricity on 28th October, 2014 and has complied all the formalities under the law but till date no electricity connection has been given to the petitioner.

Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/CESC Authority has submitted that due to S.D. stiff resistance from the private respondents they are unable to give electricity connection to the petitioner and further it appears that pursuant to the earlier order of this court on 20th May, 2016 a report has been filed by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/CESC Authority by the District Engineer, Howrah District.

Relevant portion of the said report is recorded hereunder:-

'Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court as contained in the solemn order dated 20.05.2016, undersigned is pleased to submit the following as appended below:

The petitioner/applicant paid the MASD bill on 26.11.2015 and complied with other requisite formalities on 23.11.2015.

We made attempt to install new service at the northwest corner of the applicant's premises on 15.12.2015, 15.02.2016 and on 25.04.2016.

However, in all occasions we could not carry out the job due to vehement objection at site by Bhukhal Chowdhury along with the other residents of the area. During installation of service line through the area situated at the northern side of the applicant's premises, the objectors stated above, claimed the proposed cable laying route as their private land and did not allow our men to lay any underground cable, which is approximately 15 feet long.

Photographs were taken during the period are annexed with this report for consideration.'

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in support of his contention of getting relief of the direction upon the respondent/CESC for providing electricity connection has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandu Khamaru Vs. Nayan Malik & Ors. reported in (2011)12 SCC at page 314 paragraphs 11-13 which are hereunder:

"11. We may now apply the aforesaid provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 to the facts of the present case. The appellant has a statutory right to apply for and obtain the supply of electricity from the distribution licensee and the distribution licensee has a corresponding statutory obligation to supply electricity to the appellant. Respondents 1 and 3 also do not object to the supply of electricity by the distribution licensee to the appellant as it will be clear from the averments made in Writ Petition No. 345 of 2005 filed by them before the High Court but they object to the line for supply of electricity being drawn through the passage in Dag Nos. 406, 407 and 409 which they claim to be theirs. The further grievance of Respondents 1, 2 and 3 is that they were not made parties in the earlier Writ Petition NO. 18220 of 2004 filed by the appellant in which the High Court directed the distribution licensee to effect supply of electricity to the house of the appellant.

The case of the appellant, on the other hand, is that this passage is not a private passage of Respondents 1 to 3 but is a common passage and therefore an electric line can be drawn through this common passage. This dispute will have to be resolved in Civil Suit No. 83 of 2004 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah, or in any other suit, but pending resolution of this dispute between the parties, the appellant cannot be denied the supply of electricity to his house.

We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned order of the Division Bench and dispose of the writ petition of Respondents 1 to 3 with the direction that the distribution licensee will find out whether there is any other way in which an electric line can be drawn for supply of electricity to the house of the appellant, other than the disputed passage in Dag nos. 406, 407 and 409. If there is no other way to supply electricity to the house of the appellant, the distribution licensee will follow the provisions of sub-section (2) [sic sub-section (1)] of Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for carrying out the work for supply of electricity to the house of the appellant. This exercise will be completed within a period of six months from today and till the supply of electricity to the house of the appellant is effected through some other way, supply of electricity to the house of the appellant will not be disconnected."

Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/CESC is fair enough in his submission and he has got no objection if the order in the line of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court is passed and has also relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Sk. Samsud Doha Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. AIR (2012), Calcutta 205, paragraph 18 which is as follows:

"18. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I dispose of the instant writ petition directing the respondent no. 2 herein to forthwith effect supply of electric connection to the premises of the petitioner. In order to effect such supply, if necessary, the respondent no. 2 shall undertake necessary works as envisaged under Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and, if necessary, affix electric poles in the land in question by following the procedure laid down in Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. Necessary compensation may be adjudicated and paid to the concerned persons in accordance with law. Such supply of electric energy shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order."

Considering the submission of the parties and the decisions cited, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent/CESC to forthwith effect electricity connection to the premises of the petitioner. In order to effect such supply if necessary it shall undertake necessary works as envisaged under Section 203 of the Electricity Act and if necessary, electric poles shall be erected following the procedure laid down in The Works of Licensees Rules, 2006.

Upon adjudication if it is found that the private respondents are legally entitled for any compensation, the same may be paid to them in accordance with law.

In compliance of this order if situation so arises the respondent/CESC Authorities may take the police help and the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station if such assistance is asked for he shall render all such necessary assistance in implementing this order.

This whole exercise of providing electricity connection to the petitioner must be completed by the respondent authorities concerned within twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order.

The writ petition being W.P. 27091(W) of 2015 is thus disposed of.