JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. This intra court mandamus appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner and is directed against an order dated April 11, 2023 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPA 7401 of 2023 dismissing the writ petition with cost.

2. The writ petitioner/ appellant claims to be the owner of premises no. 66/1 Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- 700020 and in a portion of such premises the 3rd respondent is running an eatery under the name and style of “Tibetan Delight”. The appellant alleges that 3rd respondent has been drawing electricity illegally from premises no. 67 Chowringhee Road to the premises no. 66/1 Chowringhee Road wherefrom the business of eatery is being carried on. The appellant approached the writ court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent licensing company to immediately disconnect the new metered connection effected in favour of the 3rd respondent. The appellant also challenged the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of Section 126 read with 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 (for short “the 2003 Act”) alleging that there has been an under assessment of unauthorised use of electricity.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had no locus standi to challenge the final order of assessment passed against the private respondent no. 3. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has approached this Court.

4. After perusing the impugned order, this Court was of the prima facie view that the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition for the reasons that the appellant had no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. However, on a closer scrutiny of the materials on record, this Court was persuaded to take a different view and for which the learned counsels of the respective parties were invited to submit on the maintainability as well as the merits of the case.

5. The learned advocate representing the appellant attacked the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the said writ petition was dismissed without calling for any affidavits. He further contended that there are errors apparent on the face of the record in as much as the finding of the learned Single judge that the writ petitioner filed the writ petition in the capacity of being a land lord of the adjacent premises is concerned. He further contended that there has been gross under assessment of unauthorised use of electricity in the final order of assessment made by the concerned authority.

6. The learned advocate representing the licensing company submitted that assessment of electricity charges payable under Section 126 of the 2003 Act has been made in terms of regulation 5.1 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations 2013 (for short “the 2013 Regulations”) and therefore the submission of the learned advocate of the petitioner that there has been an under assessment is without any basis.

7. Mr. Sanyal learned advocate representing the 3rd respondent supported the finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the final order of assessment passed under Section 126 of the 2003 Act. He submitted that the private respondent is residing at premises no. 67 Chowringhee Road and enjoying electricity through a commercial meter installed thereat. He further submitted that since the tariff for commercial consumption is higher than that for domestic purpose and also that the consumption of electricity has been duly recorded through the said meter, there cannot be said to be any under assessment as alleged by the appellant.

8. This Court has elaborately heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

9. From the final order of assessment dated February 22, 2023 it appears that the meter installed at premises no. 67 in the name of one Mr. Uday Mukhiya was the subject matter of such assessment. It further