Madan Mohan Halder vs C.E.S.C. Limited

Subrata Talukdar, J.—An affidavit of service is filed; let the same be kept on record.

Mr. Apurba Kumar Ghosh, learned advocate, appears and submits that he has already entered appearance on behalf of the private respondent No. 5 by filing his vakalatnama today under filing No. A-19551.

Office is directed to incorporate the vakalatnama filed by Mr. Ghosh in the records of this case.

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that in spite of being a lawful occupier of the subject premises located at 71, Lala Babu Saire Road, Belur, Howrah, he has not been favoured with an electricity meter in his name.

The attention of this Court is drawn to the rent receipts issued by the private respondent in favour of the occupier. On the strength of such rent receipts, the writ petitioner claims supply of electricity invoking the provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereafter in short, 2003 Act).

The learned advocate for the writ petitioner, also, draws the attention of this court to the communication on behalf of the respondent licensee authority to carry out an inspection of the subject premises in arriving at a decision to effect supply of electricity claimed through a separate meter.

On behalf of the respondent/licensee, it is argued by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the licensing authority that the electricity is being supplied to the subject premises through a block meter inasmuch as the subject premises is a cluster of hutments. It is further argued on behalf of the licensing authority that the block meter has been installed keeping in mind the safety issues involved and in order to avoid fire hazards arising out of electrical accident.

The further contention of the respondent/licensee is that supply of electricity through individual meters has been avoided because of the fact that multiplicity of wiring in an extremely congested place, such as, the subject premises is fraught with the risk of fire.

The learned advocate for the licensing authority points out that Notification No. 53 dated April 2, 2013 issued by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission and particularly Clause 18 thereof permits installation of Block Meter in extremely congested places. Clause 18 of the said notification reads as follows:

"In bustees, markets, etc. where it may not be possible to segregate one consumer from an adjacent consumer because of existence of a very large number of consumers in a relatively small premises, and where because of multiplicity of the wirings of such a large number of consumers, there may arise fire and safety hazards, the licensee may effect supply of electricity to all the consumers/intending consumers through a suitably located common meter of adequate capacity, to be known as a Block Meter."

It is the further contention of the respondent/licensee that the notification dated April 2, 2013 has been issued by the Commission in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (zp) of sub-section (2) of Section 181 read with Section 46 of the 2003 Act.

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the licensing authority clarifies that Section 43 of the 2003 Act provides for supply of electricity to the subject premises, but does not specify the manner of such supply. In its wisdom the legislature has left the manner of supply to be decided by the licensing authority taking into account the surrounding circumstances, such as, fire hazards, congested wiring, etc., which are applicable to the subject premises. Therefore, the legislature has given the power to the Commission to make regulations under Section 181 of the 2003 Act to carry out the modality of such supply and to recover the expenditure.

The learned advocate for the licensing authority, also, draws the attention of this Court to the inspection carried out by the respondent/licensee at the subject premises, notice in respect thereof being already a part of the writ petition.

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondent/owner of the subject premises produces before this Court a copy of the communication made by the District Engineer, C.E.S.C. Limited, Howrah, on behalf of the licensing authority to the respective occupiers of the subject premises reiterating the points taken by the licensing authority and elucidated above in this order. The learned advocate points out that having regard to the steps taken by the licensing authority under Notification No. 53 dated April 2, 2013 issued by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission, the occupiers have been advised to take the supply of electricity through the Block Meter No. 5007569 on compliance of all formalities including the payment of charges.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considering the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that there has been no infraction of legal provisions by the licensing authority while directing supply of electricity to the subject premises through the Block Meter as already noticed hereinabove in this order. The licensing authority has acted within its powers by considering the safety issues of the subject premises, which are admittedly a cluster of hutments, which, following the dictionary definition (Concise Oxford Dictionary: 9th Edition), denotes living units closely congregated such as in a bustee or a slum. Therefore, individual occupiers were requested to take the supply of electricity through the Block Meter in question. Such electricity supply has been arranged by the licensing authority after carrying out inspection and such admitted position appears from paragraph 5 of the writ petition itself. It is relevant to add that in several other congested areas of this metropolis supply has been effected through a common Block Meter, details whereof have been brought to the notice of this Court.

This Court is, also, in agreement with the arguments advanced on behalf of the licensing authority that the scope of Section 43 of the 2003 Act pertains to the supply of electricity and the modality thereof can be settled by the licensing authority in terms of the regulations, which are framed under the parent act.

In the backdrop of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

Dismissal of the writ petition shall not, however, prevent the individual occupiers of the subject premises to obtain supply of electricity to his premises through the Block Meter in question.

There will be no order as to costs.