A State Commission cannot reject a consumer complaint solely on the ground that a family member cannot get electricity without the owner's permission, especially when the family member has paid all arrear dues and is already receiving electricity.

Tarun Chatterjee, J.: This application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the judgement and order dated 30th March, 1995 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Tribunal, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in SC case No. 397/A/94 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the District Forum which had directed restoration of electricity in Premises No. 4/25, Mordecai Lane, P.S. Dum Dum in C.D.F. Case No. 1516 of 1994.

2. The opposite party No.3, Smt. Parul Rani Roy is the mother-in-law of the complainant who is the petitioner before me. The petitioner Smt. Rani Roy has some matrimonial litigation against her husband and as relationship between them has become extranged, they are living separately. The petitioner alleged in the complaint that the electric meter from which she was enjoying electricity in her matrimonial home was disconnected for non-payment of bills, although she was agreeable to restoration of electricity in her matrimonial home on payment of arrear bills. Accordingly, a complaint was filed for re-connection of the electricity line or for giving her a new connection before the District Forum. The mother-in-law of the petitioner was subsequently added as a party defendant on her own prayer in the proceeding under the Act.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been living in her matrimonial home although a suit for divorce is now pending in the Civil Court between the husband and the wife. The mother-in-law of the petitioner has also filed an eviction suit for ousting the petitioner from her matrimonial home and the said suit is also pending in the Civil Court. The Calcutta District Forum after considering the facts and circumstances of this case held that whether the complainant was a trespasser or not, could not be decided by it. However, the Calcutta District Forum held that as the complainant being the daughter-in-law of the opposite party No. 3 was residing in the matrimonial home, she was entitled to get electricity and accordingly, it ordered reconnection of the electric line from the existing meter on complainant's payment of all outstanding dues and reconnection fees. This order of the Calcutta District Forum was challenged by the mother-in-law Smt. Parul Rani Roy, the opposite party No.3 in appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission by the impugned order had set aside the order of the District Forum by holding inter alia that a member of a family was not entitled to a new electric connection in the house against the opposition of the owner of the same. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution has been moved by the Complainant/Petitioner.

4. I have heard Mr. P.R. Mitra for the petitioner and Mr. P. Sinha for the opposite party No.3. I have also perused the orders impugned in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution. After taking into consideration the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the materials on record, I am of the view that the State Commission has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Reasons are as follows :–

Before I take up the point raised by the learned counsel for the parties on merits; let me now dispose of a preliminary objection as to the entertain ability of this application under Article 227 of the Constitution against the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Mr. Sinha, appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.3 raised the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by submitting that in view of section 21(a)(ii) of the Act this application under Article 227 of the Constitution should not be entertained in view of the alternative remedy