The Board can insist upon payment of charges which have been authorized by the State Commission. In the absence of such authorization, the demand is without the authority of law.

Girish Chandra Gupta

( 1 ) THE petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the tenants. The petitioner No. 3 is the landlady. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 applied for new electric connection on 24th September, 2003 and 5th November, 2003 respectively. Their case is that the West Bengal State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the board) insisted that the application for supply of electricity should be made by the landlady. It is also their case that at their insistence an application by the landlady, the petitioner No. 3 herein, was filed on 24th November, 2003. The Board after necessary inspection has issued a quotation dated 24th november, 2003 by which payment of a sum of Rs. 1,28,387/- has been demanded as a prerequisite for providing electric connection. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition was filed by the tenants and the landlady praying for an order directing the State Electricity Board to give connection to the petitioners No. 1 and 2 without insisting upon payment of the said sum of Rs. 1,28,387/ -.

( 2 ) THE Board has filed an affidavit-in-opposition and thereafter, has filed a supplementary affidavit which was affirmed by one Sri S. P. Kusari on 12th August, 2005. The sum and substance of the case of the Board is to be found in the various sub-paragraphs of paragraph 13 of the said supplementary affidavit. Briefly stated their case is that there are four 100 kva transformers in the locality, where the commercial complex under construction of which the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the stallhoders, is situate. According to the Board, all the four transformers have exhausted their capacity. Five of the existing shoprooms have already been electrified from out of one of the transformers and there is no scope for giving any electric supply to any of the petitioners from the existing tansformers. The commercial complex wherein the petitioners. The commercial complex wherein the petitioners No. 1 and 2 have taken stalls is at present one storied building, but the Board is of the view that there is scope for further construction and it is likely to become a two storied shopping complex.

( 3 ) MR. Panja, learned Advocate appearing for the Board submitted that unless a new transformer is installed it is not possible to meet the requirement of the shopping complex regard being had to the foreseeable increase in the demand once the building is completely constructed. He, therefore, submitted that a transformer has to be installed and for such installation, the quotation has been issued. As and when the requisite payment is made, the supply of electricity shall commence.

( 4 ) MR. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that the Board being a licensee is obliged under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to give supply of electricity within one month from the date of application. He submitted that this statutory obligation of the Board has not been fulfilled in this case. He further submitted that the demand for a sum of Rs. 1,28,387/- is patently contrary to Section 46 of the electricity Act, 2003, which provides as follows :-"46. Power to recover expenditure- The State Commission may, be regulations, authorize a distribution licensee to charge from a person requiring a supply of electricity in pursuance Section 43 any expenses reasonably incurred in providing any electric line or electrical plant used for the purpose of giving that supply. "

( 5 ) HE submitted that the Board can insist upon payment of such expenses which have been authorized by the State Commission. The State commission in this case has not authorized the Board to insist upon payment of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,28,387/- not is there any indication in the quotation submitted by the Board that it is on the basis of authorization issued by the State Commission. He accordingly submitted that the entire exercise of the Board is illegal and should be set aside.

( 6 ) MR. Panja, learned Advocate appearing f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document