JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. Although the matters were not heard analogously, common questions arise for consideration in all the three writ petitions. As such, the matters are being decided by a common order.

2. The petitioners pray for separate, new connections being given to their respective premises in their own names. It is contended that the petitioners, being tenants in respect of their respective premises, applied duly for such separate connections but the CESC Ltd. rejected their applications on the grounds of splitting of load and on technical considerations that allegedly make it extremely dangerous to have more than one source of supply for a particular unit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it is an essential and fundamental right of the petitioners to get electric supply at the premises. Moreover, Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 specifically confers a right on an occupier to get electric supply at the occupied premises.

4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner cites two unreported co-ordinate Bench judgments of this Court, one dated July 19, 2017 passed by Harish Tandon, J. in W.P. 10456 (W) of 2017 [Rama Shankar Pandey vs. CESC Ltd. & Ors.] and the other dated January 9, 2018 delivered by Debangsu Basak, J. in W.P. 331 (W) of 2018 [Pravat Mondal vs. CESC Ltd. & Anr.].

5. The CESC Ltd., which is the distribution licensee, objects on the ground that, by virtue of such applications, the petitioners are attempting to split the load of consumption at their respective premises for getting advantage of lower rates; since there are existing connections in the names of the landlords in all the premises, from which the petitioners have already been enjoying electricity. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that such disputes are to be referred to the Grievance Redressal Officer, then to the Ombudsman in view of amendment to Regulation 14 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Providing New Connection) Regulations, 2013.

6. Regulation 14, as it stands after the second amendment which has come into force on and from September 15, 2021, clearly provides that any grievance regarding the applicant/new consumer/consumer applying with the intention of splitting of load to obtain the benefit of lower charges or furnishing of wrong/inaccurate/false statements has to be taken up before the Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO). If the applicant is dissatisfied with the order of the GRO or does not receive any order from the GRO within the time specified in the Grievance Redressal Regulations, she/he can approach the Ombudsman for redressal of his grievances as per the provisions of the Grievance Redressal Regulations.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the CESC next cites two Division Bench judgments (also unreported), one passed in CESC Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Asifa Bibi, on February 5, 2021 and the other dated August 12, 2021 in CESC Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sk. Ansar Ali, in support of his propositions.

8. The first question which arises is, whether a tenant has an unqualified right to get independent, separate electric meter in her/his own name.

9. The second is, whether the a dispute regarding splitting of load is to be referred to the forums provided under Regulation 14 (as amended till date) of the 2013 Regulations or can be decided by the writ court.

10. The learned Single Judge, in Pravat Mondal (supra), did not lay down any blanket proposition that whenever a tenant applies, she/he has to be given electric supply in consonance with Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, even violating the norms laid down by the governing law and regulations. Moreover, in the said judgment, there arose no question of any objection of the distribution licensee regarding splitting of load or other hazard. Hence, the said judgment is not a precedent relevant in the present context.

11. As far as the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Rama Shakar Pandey (supra) is con