SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Cal) 559

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.
Ranjit Mall Kothari & Ors.
vs.
CESC Limited & Ors.
W.P.No. 15580 (W) of 2000
Decided On: August 31, 2001

Advocates Appeared:
Debiprasad Pal, S. Basu, J. Majumder, A. Majumder, B. P. Banerjee for the petitioners;
Subodh Chandra Ukil, S. K. Chakrabarty for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3;
Arijit Chowdhury, Ranadhir Deb, Soumitra Pal for the CESC Ltd.

The court cannot decide technical issues in a writ petition, especially when there is a possibility of fire hazards involving loss of life and property.

Headnote:

ELECTRICITY ACT - SECTION 28 - CHARGE FOR DELAYED PAYMENT - SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY - SEPARATE METERS - DISCONNECTION OF SUPPLY - COURT'S AUTHORITY TO DECIDE TECHNICAL ISSUES - REMEDY FOR DISPUTES - ELECTRICITY CHARGES - PAYMENT OF ARREARS - COURT'S DIRECTION.

Fact of the Case:

Co-owners of a building filed a writ petition challenging the disconnection of electricity supply by CESC Ltd. due to accumulated dues. Petitioners claimed that they were willing to pay undisputed charges and sought separate meters for each occupier. CESC Ltd. justified the disconnection and surcharge for delayed payment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were liable to pay the arrear charges for electricity consumption. The court also found that the surcharge for delayed payment at a fixed rate of six percent on the total dues was not excessive as no specific rate was shown by the petitioners. However, the court rejected the petitioners' request for separate meters based on the report of the District Engineer of CESC Ltd., which expressed apprehension about fire hazards.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were liable to pay the arrear charges for electricity consumption? 2. Whether the surcharge for delayed payment at a fixed rate of six percent on the total dues was excessive? 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to separate meters for each occupier?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners, being the actual consumers of electricity, were liable to pay the arrear charges. The court found no fault with CESC Ltd.'s action in disconnecting the supply due to non-payment of dues. 2. The court found that the petitioners had not shown any provision regarding the rate at which surcharge for delayed payment could be demanded by CESC Ltd. Therefore, the court upheld the surcharge at a fixed rate of six percent on the total dues. 3. The court rejected the petitioners' request for separate meters based on the report of the District Engineer of CESC Ltd., which expressed apprehension about fire hazards. The court held that it could not decide such technical issues in a writ petition.

Final Decision: The court directed the petitioners to clear all dues within six weeks, with 50% to be paid within two weeks and the balance within four weeks. The court restrained CESC Ltd. from disconnecting the supply for six weeks. The court also directed the petitioners to approach CESC Ltd. for separate meters in accordance with the suggestions given in the report or as may be found acceptable by CESC Ltd.

JUDGMENT

Aloke Chakrabarti, J.: Facts as found in the writ petition are as follows.

The petitioners are all co-owners in respect of buildings and land at premises Nos. 16A and 16B, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta. Mr. B. K. Associates, constructed the buildings and on completion of such construction B. K. Associates sold different flats to different co-owners. The premises No. 16B, was developed by B. K. Real Estate the respondent No.2 which owns and occupies the entire 4th and 5th floors of the building. The building at premises No. 16A, maintained by Building Maintenance Organisation and the petitioners are to bear the maintenance charges payable to the said organisation. The C.E.S.C. Ltd. the respondent No.1 used to provide electricity to all consumers through a transformer (high tension) installed at the said premises in favour of B. K. Real Estate, the respondent No.2 who in turn provided electricity to all co-owners and/or occupiers. The respondent No.3 used to raise bills against the petitioners according to their respective consumption reflected in their individual sub-meters at a rate higher than the tariff stipulated by CESC Ltd.

2. In October 1997, the respondent No.3 stopped raising bills. Special Officers appointed by Court in a proceeding said to be initiated by reason of internal disputes among the partners of the respondent No.2, started preparing bills. Petitioners raised objection against such bills as not commensurate to the actual electricity consumption. On a representation made by the respondent No. 3 the petitioner did not make payment of electricity bills. Electric supply was stopped in April 2000 as CESC Ltd. disconnected the supply. The petitioner ascertained that the respondent No.3 filed two writ petitions being W.P. No. 26393 (W) of 1997 and W.P. No. 14833 (W) of 1997 which were heard together and disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on March 29, 2000 directing the petitioners to take immediate steps to pay the dues of the CESC Ltd. by paying 50 per cent of the dues within two weeks and further 50 per cent within a month thereafter. CESC Ltd. was directed not to disconnect for a fortnight and upon payment of 50 per cent of the dues not to take steps for disconnection for a month thereafter. Liberty was there to effect disconnection in case of failure of the petitioners to pay the amount as directed. It was further made clear by the court that if the petitioners paid the dues of CESC Ltd. and surrendered high tension supply and if the petitioners and occupiers apply for separate meters, the CESC Ltd. to take steps in the matter on urgent basis and after completion of all formalities by the petitioners and other occupiers CESC Ltd. was to take necessary steps in accordance with law to effect new supply to the petitioners and to the occupiers who applied for separate meters.

3. It has been stated in this writ petition that there were admitted dues on account of electricity consumption and the petitioners made applications severally for allotment of separate meters which were not allowed. It has also been submitted in the writ petition that for resolving the disputes regarding the disputed claim the matter should be referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector for proper adjudication. In such facts prayer has been made for appropriate order for restoration of supply of electricity at premises Nos. 16A and 16B, Shakespeare Sarani, upon payment of undisputed electricity charges by the petitioners and to command the C.E.S.C. Ltd. to grant separate meters in favour of the petitioners and for consequential reliefs.

4. On the writ petition, initially interim order was granted for restoring electric connection to the petitioners on condition of payment of a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs along with necessary restoration charges to the CESC authorities and the petitioners were also to pay a sum of Rs. 4lakhs for each completed month by 7th of every succeeding month with a default clause.

5. By a further order Distric




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top