( 1 ) 1. Heard 1d. counsel for the appellant. This matter has been taken up at the second call, even then nobody appears for the respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is from an order dated 30. 7. 03 passed by a 1d. Judge of the writ Court in connection with Writ Petition No. W. P. 11460 (W) of 2003. By the said judgment and order under appeal the 1d. Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ application without calling for the affidavits from the West Bengal state Electricity Board, the appellant before us. While disposing of the writ petition the 1d. Judge directed the Board to bear the cost of installation of transformer in connection with grant of electricity line for the submersible pump to be installed by the writ petitioner. The 1d. Judge while giving such direction relied on two judgments of this Court, one in the case of Kartick Chandra Bose vs. W. B. S. E. B. , reported in AIR 2000 Cal 210 and one in the case of B. Chaudhury vs. W. B. S. E. B. and Ors. , reproted in Ld. Counsel for the appellant Board submitted that those two judgments were rendered in a different context when the previous Act, viz. Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, was in force. Ld. counsel further submitted that after the new Act, the Electricity act, 2003, came into force, the statutory position has undergone a sea change and as a result of which previous judgments are no longer holding the field.

( 3 ) ON such submission being made by the 1d. counsel, we looked into the judgment in the case of Kartick Chandra Bose and we find that in the said judgment the 1d. Judge was considering the provisions of sub-sections (2), (7), (11a), and (12) of section 2 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 as also section 41 of the 1948 Act. Apart from that the 1d. Judge was considering supply in connection with domestic consumption.

( 4 ) IT cannot be disputed that so far as supply of electricity for installation of submersible pump is concerned, the same cannot be said to be domestic consumption at all. In any event the 1d. Judge did not have any occasion to consider the provisions of sections 43 and 46 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The other judgment on which reliance was placed in the judgment under appeal was also rendered considering the provisions of section 2 (f) and (1) and Schedule vi of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. In the said judgment the 1d. Judge made a distinction between service line and electric supply line. The factual context of the judgment indicates that the said judgment was also rendered in connection with domestic consumption. It also appears that the said judgment was passed in the absence of the 1d. counsel for the Board. It is submitted that the same 1d. Judge who delivered the judgment in the case of B. Chowdhury subsequently in another judgment in the case of Sk. Bosed Alui vs. W. B. S. E. B. reported in 2004 (1) CLJ (Cal) page 239 considered the provisions of the new Act. It appears that the 1d. Judge in para 4 of the judgment in Bosed Ali considered the question of service line and electric supply line and held that for the subsequent change in the statute, new provisions will govern the field and the 1d. Judge relied on sections 43 and 46 of the new Act. Relying on these two provisions of the new act, 1d. Judge in para 15 of the judgment held that prayer for supply of electricity without bearing the cost of transformer has no legal basis. In that view of the matter this Court is of the view that the major basis on which the 1d. Judge passed the order on 30. 07. 03 is no longer valid inasmuch as by the 30. 07. 03 the new Act has come into force and statutory context has totally changed. Apart from that, from the materials on record it appears that in order to obtain SWID certificate, a distance of 200 meters between two submersible pumps is required in veiw of the decreasing water level in the district of Burdwaa. This Court finds from the inspection report disclosed in this case that there are at least four nearby hand tubewells and pu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document