Point of Law : Electricity - In the absence of such notice and/or proof of hearing to the existing consumer, the decision to transfer the name cannot operate as sacrosanct and binding on the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. Peculiar circumstances have arisen in the present case. The petitioner claims to be one of the co-owners in respect of Premises No. 33, Sashi Bhusan Chatterjee Lane, Bally, Howrah. It is alleged that the other co-owners of the petitioner, by practising fraud upon the petitioner, have executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent no.4. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the Bally Police Station in respect of such allegedly fraudulent act.

2. The writ petitioner has also filed a suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent no.4 and the other co-owners in the Second Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Howrah, bearing Title Suit No.337 of 2021. In the said suit, on an application of the petitioner for temporary injunction, the civil court passed an order on June 22, 2021 directing the plaintiff/petitioner as well as the defendants (including private respondent no.4) to maintain status quo in respect of nature, character and possession of the disputed property and also not to create/alienate the said property in respect of a third party. Such ad interim order, initially passed on June 22, 2021, was subsequently extended from time to time, lastly till January 15, 2022.

3. In the meantime, the private respondent communicated with the CESC Limited and had the electric meter existing in the said premises transferred in the name of the respondent no.4 in place of the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that the CESC authorities, without causing inspection and/or verification, effected such transfer of name, without any prior notice to the petitioner. Subsequently, on the request of the private respondent no.4, that is, the transferee-consumer, the CESC Limited temporarily disconnected the electric supply to the premises.

4. The petitioner alleges that he and his family, including a three-year old child, is living without any electricity, due to such disconnection, since July 10, 2021. Despite several requests to the CESC, the CESC has not restored the electric supply to the premises.

5. The present writ petition has been filed primarily for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the CESC Limited to cause immediate restoration and/or reconnection of the petitioner’s electric supply at the said premises, at the meter having Consumer No.62178021004.

6. Learned counsel for the CESC submits that the CESC transferred the name of the consumer in the name of the respondent no.4 upon the respondent no.4 having deposited a copy of the registered transfer deed. As such, it is beyond the charter of the CESC limited to have taken evidence and/or decide the title of the parties on merits. In view of the deposit of the sale-deed in the name of the transferee, the CESC transferred the name regarding the consumer number-in-question and, on subsequent request from the transferee-consumer, temporarily disconnected the electric supply of the said premises. As such, unless the present consumer, that is, respondent no.4 applies for restoration of the connection to the premises, there is no scope for the CESC limited to restore the electric supply.

7. On the other hand, since the petitioner no longer has any locus standi to have a new electric connection from the same meter, since it is not permissible in law to give different connections in respect of the same premises in the name of different persons, the hands of the CESC to are tied with regard to acceding the petitioner’s request for reconnection.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 categorically contends that the CESC transferred the name of the consumer no. following due process of law. The respondent no.4, being the present owner, has every right to have the electric meter transferred in his own name and subsequently to have disconnected the said connection temporarily, since the respondent no.4 is not having requirement for electricity at the said premises at the present moment.

9. It is furt