The respondent is the best judge as to whether it would be prudent, safe, and in the interest of all the shop owners of the building complex as to whether separate meters could be or would be allowed.

Ronojit Kumar Mitra, J.

This was an application for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent- Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation Limited, to allot separate direct meters to each of the petitioners and all other intending unit holders within one week. The petitioners were the owners of shops at premises 46D, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road (formerly Wellesly Street, Calcutta-16). It has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that premises No. 46D consisted of three buildings comprising a building complex and subsequently that the entire building complex where the shop rooms were situate had been numbered by the Municipal Corporation of Calcutta initially as 46A and thereafter when the building had come up, there had been separate numbering as 46D, 46E and 46F. One Riddhi Properties & Investments (P) Ltd. of 1, British India Street, Calcutta, had promoted building No. 46D and had taken the electricity connection from the respondent No.1 in its own name. The shop rooms of the petitioners were contained in the premises No. 46D. It was alleged on behalf of the petitioners chat the entire building was receiving high tension electricity and though the petitioners did not require such high tension electricity, they were having to pay higher rates in respect to such high tension electricity. In this petition it was prayed on behalf of the petitioners, that the C.E.S.C. be directed to make the necessary arrangement so that the petitioners would obtain low tension electricity and .have their own separate meters. In a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, a letter dated November 25, 1998, being annexure 'D' had been written on behalf of the Riddhi Properties and Investments (P) Ltd. to the respondent No.1 from where it appeared that there was no objection on this behalf the respondent No.1, granting separate direct meters to each and every intending occupier in all the three buildings.

2. In support of the submission made on behalf of the petitioners he relied on the decisions reported in 1997 Vol. I Calcutta High Court Notes 473, and 1997 Vol. I Calcutta High Court Notes 474.

3. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent No.1 that since there was only shop room and offices in the building the respondent No. 1 levied charges on the basis of mixed rate of domestic and commercial supply of power being Rate B of Standard Rates for High Voltage Energy as contained in the Schedule of Rates (September, 1993). It was also submitted, that the demand made by the petitioners for the supply of low tension electricity could not be given as because low tension electricity was given only for domestic supplies. Reference was made to clause 3(a) of the conditions of supply framed by the Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (India) Limited and sanctioned by the Government of West Bengal. The clause stipulates:

"The licensee will decide whether a separate service will be made to each consumer on any premises or whether a supply to all consumers in any premises will be given through separate consumers from a common service installed on the premises."

The decision reported in AIR 1989 SC 788 was relied on with particular reference, and I quote from paragraph 29 of the decision:

"We think that the question as to what should be considered the correct feasible capacity of the appellant's sets is one involving complex technical knowledge and the High Court, (or for that matter this court) was well advised not to had attempted to determine it."

Reliance has also placed on Rule 59(2) of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956:

"59(2). A supplier shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid any accidental interruptions of supply, and also to avoid danger to the public or to any employee or authorised person when engaged on any operation during and in connection with installation, extension, replacement, repair and maintenance of any works."

4. In the decision reported in 1997 Vol. I Calcutta High Court Notes 473, the question