Back
1952 Supreme(Cal) 141
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bose
ASWINI KUMAR SAMANTA - Appellant
Versus
MANAGER, CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPN. LTD. - Respondent
Civil Rule 2997 Of 1951
Decided On : JULY 09, 1952
Debi Prasad Dhal, Nikhil Chandra Talukdar, Ramendra Nath Basu, SURENDRA NATH BASU, WOOPENDRANATH NEOGI
The consent of the owner is necessary before an electric installation can be made on the premises in respect of which supply is asked for. A question of title cannot be tried in mandamus proceedings.
Headnote:
ELECTRICITY ACT - SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY - CONSENT OF OWNER - SECTION 12(2) - CONDITIONS OF SUPPLY - RATE BOOK OF 1940, PARAGRAPH 1(B) - MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS - QUESTION OF TITLE - SUIT FOR DETERMINATION OF TITLE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied to the electricity company for supply of electricity to his premises. The company inspected the premises and sent a bill for the installation. The petitioner paid the bill and the company installed the electric line and fitted the meter box. However, the company later received a letter from the zamindars, who claimed ownership of the land, stating that there was a dispute regarding the land. The company then stopped the work and informed the petitioner that they could not proceed further until an amicable settlement was reached between the petitioner and the zamindars.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the consent of the owner is necessary before an electric installation can be made on the premises in respect of which supply is asked for. The court also held that a question of title cannot be tried in mandamus proceedings and that such question should properly form the subject-matter of a suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the electricity company is required to supply electricity to the petitioner's premises without the consent of the owner of the land? 2. Whether a question of title can be tried in mandamus proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 12(2) of the Electricity Act provides that without the consent of the owner and occupier of a particular premises, no electric-supply line or work can be laid down or placed through or against any building or on, over or under any land which is not dedicated to the public use. 2. Paragraph 1(b) of the Rate Book of 1940, which governs the conditions of supply of electrical energy, states that where the consumer is not the owner of the building or land, the concurrence and permission in writing of the owner or owners must be obtained by the consumer. 3. A question of title cannot be tried in mandamus proceedings. Such question should properly form the subject-matter of a suit.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed and the rule was discharged. The petitioner was ordered to pay the costs of the application to the electricity company.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate Writ directing the opposite party No. 1 to supply electricity at premises No. 14, Kalitala Lane, Earanagar, in the district of 24-Parganas.
( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he is a lease-holder for more than 12 years paying as annual rent for the land situate at 14 Kalitala Lane, Baranagar, in the district of 24-Parganas under the Zamindars who are opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4. It is alleged that the petitioner has erected a pucca structure of his own on the land and he has become a permanent leaseholder. It appears that the petitioner applied to the opposite party No. 1 for supply of electricity at the said premises. An inspector of the opposite party No. 1 came to the petitioner's said premises for inspection. It is alleged that the opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 came to know about this application of the petitioner to the opposite party No. 1 for the supply of electricity to the said premises and they demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- by way of blackmailing the petitioner but as the petitioner refused to pay any sum the said opposite parties out of grudge wrote a letter dated 30-10-1950 to the opposite party No. 1 stating that there was a dispute subsisting in respect of the lands in question. It is further alleged that the opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 failed to prove any subsisting dispute before the opposite party No. 1 who ignored the objection put forward on behalf of the said opposite parties and on 11-12-1950 the opposite party No. 1 sent a bill to the petitioner for payment of Rs. 93-14-0 for the said electric installation. Thereafter on 5-1-1951 the petitioner paid the sum of Rs. 93-14-0 and the opposite party No. 1 thereupon installed the electric line up to the said premises and fitted the electric meter box at the said premises but on 26-2-1951 the said opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 wrote another letter to the opposite party No. 1 and requested the opposite party No. 1 to take necessary action in view of what was stated in their previous letter of 30-11-1950. On 7-3-1951 the Acting District Engineer of the Northern District of the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. wrote a letter to the petitioner stating that the Supply Corporation was unable to proceed further in the matter until an amicable settlement amongst the petitioner and the opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 was arrived at. The petitioner thereupon wrote another letter to the opposite party No. 1 on 21-6-1951 stating that there was no dispute with regard to the land' in question and requested the opposite party No. 1 to complete the work at the said premises and supply the electrical energy to the said premises but on 28-6-1951 the Assistant District Engineer wrote back to the pleader of the petitioner to the effect that the Corporation regretted that they had nothing further to add to the letter of 7-3-1951. Upon that the petitioner moved this Court and obtained a Rule Nisi on 5-12-1951.
( 3 ) THE opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed a counter-affidavit affirmed by the opposite party No. 4. It is stated in this affidavit that the petitioner is in occupation of the land in question for less than 12 years as a monthly ejectable tenant at will and the rent is payable monthly and not annually per kist as alleged and there are certain other co-sharers in respect of the lands in question who have not been made parties to this application. It is further stated that the tenancy had been terminated by giving six months' notice in writing on 28-8-1950 asking the petitioner to vacate the land by 14-4-1951. It is further stated in this affidavit that the said opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4, their co-sharers are the owners in respect of this land and their consent is necessary under Section 12 (2), Indian Electricity Act for the supply of such electric energy. ' it is also pointed out in this affidavit that the petitioner had signed the wh
