KRISHNAPADA MONDAL vs DURANTA KUMAR MONDAL

THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment and Order dated 21.2.2003 passed by the District Consumer Forum, 24-Parganas (South) District, allowing the complaint in CDF Case No. 24/2002 on contest with cost of Rs. 500/- and with compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and directing the O.P., WBSEB to give electric connection in the house of the complainant and instal a meter within a month from the date of that Order subject to observance of all formalities as per electricity rules by the complainant (the present respondent No. 1). It was held by the Forum that there was no need to pass any order against O.P. Nos. 3 to 6 (the present appellants) on the reasoning that raising of any objection by some outsiders or cosharers could not be the ground for not providing electricity to the complainant.

THE case of the appellants before the Forum was that the electric line for being given to the complainant''s house could not be drawn over their lands under the law as thereby their right, title and interest would be infringed. THE O.P. - WBSEB''s case was that the electric line could not be drawn due to absence of common passage and due to the resistance given by the O.P. Nos. 3 to 7. The Forum after hearing all the sides and considering the materials on record passed the above order. Being aggrieved by that order the said O.P. Nos. 3 to 7 have preferred this appeal challenging that order as illegal and improper and liable to be set aside.

The appellants have produced the copies of the order sheet of the Execution Case No. 75/2003 of the said Forum which was filed by the complainant-Dhr. against the Jdr.-OP.-WBSEB for putting the impugned order into execution. These order dated 2.9.2003 show that the Executing Forum allowed the prayer of the Dhr. to provide police help to enable the Jdr.-SEB to draw the electric line in question. Then the Order dated 29.12.2003 shows that the WBSEB gave the line and connection as per order of the Forum, but thereafter one Sukumar Mondal of the locality had forcibly disconnected it again. At this the Forum observed that since the Jdr. had done his duty by complying with Forum''s order no further action could be taken against it and it was for the local police to take legal action against the said person for causing mischief. On the next date fixed, i.e., 28.1.2004 since the Dhr. did not turn up to oppose the submission made on behalf of the Jdr.-WBSEB that the electric line had already been provided to the premises of the Dhr. as per order of the Executing Forum, it deemed that the order had been so complied with and accordingly it passed the order that the execution case was disposed of on full satisfaction.

TRUE that in this execution case these appellants were not made parties and it was disposed of behind their back on the ground that no relief was sought for against them. But, our predicament is that since the order impugned against which this appeal has been preferred has been already executed, we cannot now sit to decide on its legality or validity because of the simple reason that nothing is left for being set aside. After the electric line is already drawn in execution of the order of the Forum, a Consumer Court cannot order its demolition on the prayer of the appellants on the ground that the line has been drawn over their landed properties, for such a task falls within the domain of a Civil Court exclusively. Again, if after such a line is drawn in execution of the impugned order, it is forcibly torn down or dismantled by any member of the public or by any one of the appellants, then also that will not attract our intervention and Regular Courts of civil or criminal jurisdiction would be the appropriate Forum for providing the required relief or remedy to the aggrieved party. In view of the reasons discussed above we are unable to enter into a hearing on merits of this appeal as the impugned order already been executed, as shown by the order dated 28.1.2004 of the Executing Forum, and the appeal has become infructuous. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal being not legally maintainable. Appeal dismissed.