The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of locus standi for filing a writ petition and the application of relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2013.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The present two writ petitions have been filed for similar reliefs. W.P.O. No. 1103 of 2021 has been preferred by certain individuals allegedly having interest in the disconnection of electricity in the building situated at Premises No. 156, Rabindra Sarani, Police Station- Jorasanko, Kolkata-700 007.

2. W.P.O. No.1954 of 2022 has been filed by an Association of the Tenants of the said building and its Secretary.

3. Insofar as W.P.O. No.1103 of 2021 is concerned, the locus standi of the petitioners to file the writ petition is under challenge by the respondents. At the interlocutory stage, while deciding GA 2 of 2022 on February 14, 2022, it was held prima facie by this Court that the petitioners do not have locus standi to file the writ petition. However, the question of locus standi was kept open to be agitated at the final hearing of the writ petition.

4. The order dated February 14, 2022 reveals that sufficient documents had not been produced by the petitioners to substantiate their locus standi to refer the instant writ petition.

5. As per the ratio laid down in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported at (2013) 4 SCC 465 and cited by respondent no.7-landlord, a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding unless he satisfies the authority/court that he falls within the category of 'aggrieved person'. Only a person who has suffered or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc., in a court of law. It was held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authority and that there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which the writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The existence of such right is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court.

6. In the present case, the writ petitioners have filed certain documents with their supplementary affidavit.

7. The photocopy of an electricity bill in the name of the petitioner no. 2, for the month of November 2021, annexed to the petitioners' supplementary affidavit, shows zero consumption for the previous six months whereas the disconnection took place after the fire allegedly on October 9, 2021, casting a shadow on the allegation that the petitioners have been residing at the building-in-question.

8. The photocopy of another electricity bill of the month of October, 2021, allegedly in the name of the deceased father of the petitioner no. 1, also shows negligible electricity consumption for the previous six months. Moreover, admittedly, the consumer in whose name the bill has been produced has died. Although a certificate of enlistment issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in the name of the petitioner no. 1 and others' has also been produced in respect of the disputed property, the same ipso facto cannot be held to be proof of the petitioners' settled occupation in respect of such premises, particularly in view of the meagre electricity consumption reflected in the electricity bill.

9. That apart, an electricity bill has also been produced in the name of one Nagindas M Zavery, who is allegedly the grandfather of the petitioner no. 3. However, the bill being in the name of a third party to the writ petition, it cannot be said that the petitioner no. 3 is a consumer of electricity at the premises or is in settled occupation of the building.

10. Nothing substantial has come on record to vindicate the petitioners' claim of having locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for the disconnection of electricity at the building-in-question.

11. As such, in view of the petitioners having no locus standi, W.P.O. No.1103 of 2021 is dismissed, without going into the merits of the respective cases of the p