Mahendra Kumar Baid vs CESC Ltd. & Ors

Shekhar B. Saraf, J

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authority in providing him a new meter connection in the portion of the premises he resides.

It is the case of the petitioner that he has applied for a new meter board but the same has not been installed by the CESC as the private respondents being respondent nos.6, 7 & 8 (the landlords) are not allowing the CESC to carry out inspection.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the CESC submits that two attemps were made by them to carry out an inspection but they were unable to do so as the meter board room was not accessible.

Letters dated April 12, 2019 and June 25, 2019 have been handed over by the counsel appearing on behalf of the CESC. Both the letters written by the CESC, inform the petitioner of the problem with regard to accessibility of the premises.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, vehemently opposes any prayer to be granted in favour of the petitioner. He submits that without filing affidavits no order can be passed in this writ petition. He submits that an order has been passed under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dated January 25, 2019 wherein the petitioner was restrained from installing an electric meter over the suit premises. He submits that this order continues to be in operation and therefore, no order can be passed by this court directing installation of a new meter. He further submits that the petitioner is all along enjoying electricity from his electric connection and therefore, there is no question of grant of a separate meter to the petitioner.

I have heard counsel on behalf of all the parties and perused the materials on record.

Firstly, in my view, the contention of the counsel on behalf of the private respondents that the order under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is still in existence is without any substance as an order under Section 144(2) is always for a limited period and remains in force only for two months. That period is obviously over now and, therefore, there is no impediment against the installation of an electric meter. Counsel for the private respondent has not been able to show any extension of the order passed on January 25, 2019. The undisputed facts in this case are that the petitioner is residing in the premises. He wishes to have a new meter connection taken which in my opinion is his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to enjoy electricity is clearly a fundamental right and the same cannot be denied to the petitioner due to frivolous objections being raised by the landlord. In my view, the objections raised by the landlord are not substantiated with any cogent reasons and appears to be simply a battle of egos.

Under such circumstances, in my view, there should be no impediment to grant of separate meter in favour of the petitioner. It is clear that CESC is willing to provide the said electric meter to the petitioner but has been prevented in doing so by the landlord.

As the counsel on behalf of the private respondents wishes to file an affidavit, the same is allowed. Affidavit-in-opposition may be filed by November 5, 2019. Reply thereto, if any, be filed by two weeks thereafter.

In the present case, I find that a mandatory ad interim order is required to be passed in favour of the petitioner that shall abide by the result of the writ petition. Accordingly, I direct CESC to carry out an inspection and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. If CESC finds that it is feasible to install a new meter in the present meter room/place, they shall proceed to install the said meter. In the event, they are unable to do so, they shall inform the petitioner of the alternative options. In the event, it is not feasible to install a new meter, CESC is directed to record the same in the affidavit that is going to be filed by them.

In the event, police help is required, CESC is directed to take the same from the Officer-in-Charge, Manicktola Police Station being the respondent no.5.

Needless to mention, costs for police assistance shall be entirely borne by the petitioner.

Let this matter appear on November 22, 2019.