JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, J.

1. The matter has been referred to this Bench by the Hon’ble Chief Justice to answer the following reference: “whether it is legally plausible for the CESC Limited to give separate domestic connections from separate electric meter boards in respect of same premises, which is co-owned by different parties and not partitioned by metes and bounds as per law, either by any registered partition deed or by a competent Court’s decree.

2. The facts discerned from the order dated November 30, 2001 passed in WPA no. 16560 of 2021 by the Single Bench was that the co-owner of the property applied for separate independent electric connection in the joint premises and the CESC refused to accede to such prayer as the objection was raised by the other co-owner. The objector i.e. the other co-owner relied on a judgment of the Single Bench rendered in Nabin Agarwal & Anr. vs. C.E.S.C. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2003 (4) CHN 541 for the proposition that the occupiers of segregated buildings or structures are entitled to separate electric connection from different meters even when there is no formal partition of premises. Apropos the aforesaid judgment it was contended that in the event the co-owner intends to have the separate electric connection, the same can be given through a separate electric meter installed on the same electric meter board set up for catering the supply at the said premises and, therefore, no separate electric line can be provided to such co-owner in respect of the joint premises. The Single Bench ultimately held that the judgment rendered in Nabin Agarwal & Anr. (Supra) relates to a situation where high tension connection was given to cater the supply of the larger premises and in this event, the premises is segregated physically and no partition is affected and the same cannot be construed that in case of a joint premises unless the partition is effected, separate electric connection can be provided. Since the Single Bench could not pursued itself to agree with the ratio of law laid down in the above-noted decision, referred the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice formulating the point of reference as indicated in the first paragraph of this judgment. We invited the parties to address us on the aforesaid point of reference which has been entrusted upon this Bench to decide.

3. The parties are at variance on a factual aspect concerning the status of the property to be joint. According to the objector, i.e., the co-owner, the joint property has been partitioned by metes and bounds and no longer exist as joint property; on the other hand, the writ petitioner contends that there has been no partition by metes and bounds and, therefore, it remained as joint property. The Bench cannot go into such disputed facts as the same is required to be determined by the Writ Court after the reference is answered. Interestingly, Mr. Sanyal, the learned Advocate appearing for the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (C.E.S.C.) did not in unequivocal terms discarded the notion of non supply of electricity through separate electric connection in the joint premises but reserved his arguments to the effect that such supply may be feasible depending upon the nature of the property and its accessibility and feasibility of catering the separate supply connection. To elaborate the aforesaid contention it is submitted by Mr. Sanyal that in respect of a smaller premises ordinarily one supply line is provided to avoid any interjection and/or overlapping of the live wires in order to prevent the hazards and/or accident that may occur. However, he could not rule out the possibility of supplying electricity to separate electric supply line if it ruled out any hazards or the accident more particularly when the said property can be accessed so conveniently that there is no overlapping or congestion in the supply line. He candidly submits that one supply line may cater up to 20-25 meters subject to the availability of the requisit