Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.
Nemai Hait
Versus
CESC Limited and Anr.
W.P. No. 6175 (W) of 2000 with W.P. No.18185 (W) of 1997
Decided On : December 20, 2000
ELECTRICITY - RIGHT TO CONNECTION - OCCUPIER - LAWFUL OCCUPIER - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 12(6) OF THE INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 - APPLICANT NOT OWNER OF PREMISES - ENTITLEMENT TO ELECTRICITY CONNECTION - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner applied for a new AC electric connection to premises at 82, Belilious Lane, Howrah-1, where he resided with his family. CESC informed him that inspection would be held but was denied access to the meter board by private respondents. CESC required a written consent from registered consumers of the premises agreeing to the change of supply from D.C. to AC. Petitioner responded that the entire D.C connection had been disconnected. Private respondents filed a written objection to the proposed supply of the new AC connection, referring to pending proceedings in a title suit and a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had been residing in the premises for a long time and was not a trespasser. The petitioner satisfied the requirement of section 12(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and his right to get electricity could not be turned down, especially in view of the ratio in the case of Soumitra Banerjee (supra). The Court also held that the petitioner's right to get electricity, in the facts and circumstances of this case, could not be defeated having regard to the guarantee of Article 21.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, who was not the owner of the premises, had the right to obtain an electricity connection? 2. Whether the petitioner satisfied the requirement of 'lawful occupier' under section 12(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to electricity is covered by sections 12(2), 12(6), and 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Unless the person claiming electricity is a trespasser to the property concerned, he is entitled to a grant of electricity. 2. The expression 'lawful occupier' in section 12(6) of the Act should be interpreted in a diluted sense. All occupiers who are peace-loving and have an arguable case that might succeed in the end are entitled to get an electricity connection, notwithstanding opposition by opponents.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and CESC was directed to give an AC electric connection to the petitioner upon complying with all formalities and paying all charges. The objection of the private respondents to the petitioner's prayer to get an electric connection was overruled.
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for granting of a new AC. electric connection to the premises at 82, Belilious Lane, Howrah-1 (hereinafter called the said premises). The petitioner is staying in the said premises since childhood and is now is staying there with his family. In support of the said fact, the petitioner has disclosed various documents like letters of Municipal Authorities written in respect of the said premises which had been addressed to the petitioner. The petitioner has referred to three such letters written to him by the Howrah Municipal Corporation in respect of the said premises. The petitioner has also disclosed the telephone bill in respect of the said premises in his name and from the bill which has been annexed to the writ petition it appears that date of installation of the said telephone is sometime in the September, 1996. In the affidavit-in-reply filed in the proceeding by the petitioner, he has also disclosed a ration card in his name with the address of the said premises. On the basis of these documents the petitioner wants to show that he has been staying in the said premises for quite some time and is not a stranger to the said premises nor is he a trespasser.
2. The petitioner's case is that he applied for electric connection in respect of the said premises on 24.02.99. The said application was made by him for obtaining a new A.C. connection. In answer to that, the second respondent namely the District Engineer, Howrah Regional Officer, C.E.S.C. Limited by a letter dated 24.2.99 informed the petitioner that inspection will be held on 4.3.99. But the petitioner requested for inspection on another date. Thereafter the officers of the C.E.S.C wanted to have inspection but could not undertake the same as they were denied access to the meter board and was resisted by the private respondents. To that effect a letter was written to the petitioner by the C.E.S.C authorities to furnish a written consent from the registered consumers of the said premises that they are agreeable to the change of supply from D.C. to AC to enable the C.E.S.C to complete the change over from D.C service to AC service. To that the petitioner wrote back by saying that the entire D.C connection has been disconnected. Thereafter the petitioner was informed that a written objection was filed by the private respondents to the proposed supply of the new A.C connection in the said premises. In the petition filed by the private respondents, they have referred to two proceedings. One is a title suit pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division, Howrah) being Title Suit No. 42 of 1995 and the other is a writ petition pending in this Court being writ petition No. 18185(W) of 1997. The Court has pursued the plaint filed in the said suit which has been disclosed in this proceeding and on the perusal of the plaint of that suit. It does not appear that the question of changing electric meter from D.C to AC in the said premises is an issue in the said title suit. The said title suit is in respect of certain properties and the petitioner is not even a party in the said title suit.
3. So far as the writ petition is concerned this court finds that in the said writ petition also the petitioner is not a party. The complain in the said writ petition is about the inaction of the authorities in recording the names of Sunil Kr. Maity and Bimal Kumar Maity in the record of rights in question. In connection with the said pleas of the Sunil Kumar Maity and Bimal Kumar Maity, a learned Judge of this Court has granted an order of status quo as regards possession. This Court is, therefore, of the view that pendency of these two proceedings has nothing to do with the question of considering the petitioner's prayer in this writ petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the C.E.S.C authorities has very fairly submitted that the right of the petitioner to get electric connection is covered by sec
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
