A person in settled possession of any immovable property is entitled to an electric connection under Section 43 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, even if there is an objection from the owner of the property or a suit for partition is pending.

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J.

1. We have decided to dispose of the present appeal with the consent of the parties and by dispensing with all formalities.

2. This is an appeal from an order dated January 09, 2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. 20084 (W) of 2011. The appellant before us was the writ petitioner. By filing the said writ petition the writ petitioner, appellant herein, had, inter alia, prayed for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to provide new electric connection to the premises as mentioned in the writ petition. He also prayed for an interim order directing the Electricity Company to provide temporary electric connection to his occupied portion of the premises in the meantime.

3. The case as made out in the writ petition is that he is a permanent resident of a certain portion of the premises in the District of Paschim Medinipur, where he lives with his family. In the month of July, 2007 he has made an application for a new connection of electricity for domestic purpose at the said portion of the premises. After the initial formalities were completed, the petitioner had received a notice from the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Distribution Company’) by which he was informed that during inspection of the said premises the company had received an objection from the father of the writ petitioner who figures respondent no. 4 in both the writ petition as well as the present appeal.

4. The petitioner has stated that three of his brothers residing in the said premises have been given new electric connection in the month of July 2011. It is further stated that he is in occupation of certain portion of the said premises as co-owner.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that he was in occupation of certain portion of the said premises, the Distribution Company being a licensee and being under an obligation to supply electricity had violated their statutory obligation in declining to give new electric connection.

6. With these allegations he filed the writ petition, upon which the learned Single Judge has passed the order impugned in the present appeal. It appears from the said order that the private respondent i.e. respondent no. 4 who happens to be the father of the writ petitioner had resisted the supply of new electric connection to the portion of the said premises occupied by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has recorded the objections of respondent no.4 that the petitioner was enjoying electricity and that during the pendency of a suit for partition before the learned civil court, it would not be possible to give separate connections to the residents of the premises. Direction of exchanging affidavits between the parties was also there in the order. The learned Single Judge was of the view that it would not be appropriate to pass any mandatory interim order. This refusal to grant interim order has been assailed by the writ petitioner in the present appeal.

7. Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that his client is in settled possession of the premises in question and as such he is entitled to get electricity connection from the Distribution Company i.e. respondent no.1 herein, which could never deny the provisions laid down under Section 43 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

8. Mr. Panda, learned advocate appearing for the Distribution Company has very fairly submitted that the company has no objection in giving electric connection to the portion of the premises occupied by the writ petitioner. In fact the company could have given such connection long back, but for a serious objection raised by the respondent no.4. Learned advocate has also not disputed that very recently the Distribution Company has given three new connections to three of the petitioner’s brothers.

9. But as before the learned Single Judge so also before us Mr. Mahato,