JUDGMENT

Prakash Shrivastava, CJ. - By this appeal, the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05th February, 2021 whereby the W.P. No. 10003 of 2020 has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the appellant to raise a quotation to the respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) and subject to the respondent No. 1 paying the cost and expenses as per the quotation and complying with the other formalities, the appellant is to grant connection to the respondent No. 1 within seven days.

2. Submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that no opportunity was given to the appellant to file the affidavit-in-opposition before the learned Single Judge as the writ petition was disposed of on the first day itself. He has further submitted that the respondent No. 1 is residing in the same flat in which his mother is residing and in that flat there is already a connection in the name of the mother, therefore, the second connection in the same flat will lead to splitting of load which is not permissible.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the respondent No. 1 is residing in a different flat on a different floor, therefore, a separate connection is required.

4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had no opportunity to file the affidavit-in-opposition. In CaN 1 of 2021 in paragraph 4 (b), (c) and (d), it has been specifically stated by the appellant that there are three flats on the first floor and there are three meters for three flats and one of them is standing in the name of Shabana Majid, the mother of the respondent No. 1 and that respondent No. 1 is residing in the same flat along with his father and mother. The said flat contains only two rooms, one kitchen and one bathroom, admeasuring 700-750 sq. ft., and that the respondent No. 1 had applied for new connection in the flat in the first floor, whereas the stand of the respondent before the Court is that he is residing in different flat in different floor. This disputed question of fact as to whether the respondent No. 1 is residing with the mother on the first floor or is residing on the second floor in a separate flat cannot be decided in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. That apart, the order dated 08th October, 2020, which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, clearly states that the premises in question was already provided with supply of electricity connection, therefore, the new connection with the intention of splitting the load to obtain the benefit of lower charges is not permissible. In the writ petition, respondent No. 1 had raised a factual issue contrary to the conclusion in the order dated 08th October, 2020. a perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge reveals that this aspect could not be highlighted before the learned Single Judge for want of affidavit-in-opposition, which resulted in the direction which is questioned before this Court.

5. In such cases, Clause 14 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Providing New Connections) Regulations, 2013 (for short 'the Regulations') provides for remedy of raising the grievance before the Grievance Redressal Officer and thereafter, before the Ombudsman. amended Regulation 14 of the Regulations reads as under:

'14. Effect of splitting of load:

If any applicant/intending consumer/consumer submits any application for new connection(s) with the intention of splitting the load to obtain the benefit of lower charges or furnishes wrong/inaccurate/false statements, his application would be liable to be rejected under the provision of the act, or the regulations made thereunder, and 25% of payments/deposits if already made by him by way of charges for obtaining new connection in terms of these regulations, shall be forfeited by the distribution licensee before the rest of the