A licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, has the right to refuse reconnection or installation of a fresh connection in the same premises in the name of another person until the outstanding dues are liquidated, but this right may be subject to exceptions in certain circumstances.

Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.

The five writ petitioners in this writ petition pray for direction upon the respondent Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (CESC for shrot) for supplying electricity to them and also for separate meters. The writ petitioners claim to be tenants in respect of different portions of premises No. 168B, Cotton Street, Calcutta under the respondent No.2. It is the contention of the CESC inter alia that the meters in the said premises stood in the name of the landlord and as the landlord made huge default in payment of electricity dues the line was disconnected and the writ petitioners as tenants/occupants of the said premises who enjoyed the benefit of electric connection to the said premises through the meter standing in the name of the landlord are not entitled to separate connection and meter in 'respect of their separate portions unless such arrear dues are liquidated. The matter however went up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court remanded the matter by order dated 21st November, 1994 with certain directions upon the trial court. It was directed inter alia that the trial court would reconsider the prayer of each of the writ petitioners for a suitable direction to the CESC to supply electricity to the tenants alleged to be in occupation as an interim measure on such terms as are considered appropriate and reasonable subject to final outcome of the suit. Subsequently, the writ petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 5 filed application dated the 19th January, 1995 inter alia praying for separate electric connection and also for interim orders. Affidavit-in-opposition also has been affirmed on behalf of the CESC. The landlord respondent however preferred not to appear before this court inspite of service of notice. However, on the submission of the learned Advocates of all the parties appearing before me and as desired by them the application of the writ petitioners 1, 3 and 5 for interim order and the writ petition itself have been taken up together for simultaneous disposal as common questions are involved therein.

2. The contentions of the respondent CESC are summarised hereinafter. In 1977 the landlord of' the said premises filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 1788 of 1977 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the CESC for declaration that the CESC is: not entitled to charge commercial rate for current consumed at the said premises and obtained an ex parte ad interim order of injunction restraining the CESC from disconnecting the electric line in the said premises. Thereafter the said suit was dismissed for default several times and lastly it. was dismissed in 1988 and a Misc. case for restoration of the said suit was filed and also an application under s. 151 CPC for an ad interim order of injunction which was rejected and then the landlord filed a revisional application in the High Court. The revisional application was disposed of on 2.3.93 by directing the landlord to deposit Rs. 1 lakh in the trial court and to go on paying the current electricity dues and in default the CESC was given the liberty to proceed as per law. However, initially on the said revisional application the landlord obtained an ex parte ad interim order of injunction and taking advantage of that interim order of injunction he did not pay the dues for consumption of electricity in the said premises to the tune of Rs. 10,23,382.73 which has been arrived at after adjustment of security deposit. Apart from the said amount delayed payment surcharge is also payable for the said amount. As the consumer failed to make payment of the current dues, the electricity supply at the said premises was disconnected by the CESC on 26 .7.93 pursuant to the leave granted to it in the order of the court dated 2.3.93. On 11.8.93 the landlord moved a writ application praying inter alia for a direction to restore the supply but no interim order was passed for restoration. Then on 29.9.93 .the present writ petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4 and