IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established is that the opposite party was not a consumer as defined under the Electricity Act, 2003 or the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, leading to jurisdictional errors by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. This revisional application is directed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.12.2013 in SC/FA/1274/2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal and order dated 31.10.2013 passed in EA Case No. 26 of 2013 arising out of order dated 31.12.2012 in C.C. Case No. 28 of 2012 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, South 24 Parganas.

2. Despite service affected upon the opposite party she did not venture to appear and contest the present revisional application.

3. The opposite party (herein) made an application for getting a new electric connection from the petitioner/ the Station Manager, Mathurapur Group Electric Supply, South 24 Parganas under the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and deposited the required amount. A dispute was going on between the opposite party and one Sanatan Halder over the issue of installing any pole on the disputed land for providing connection to the opposite party by the present petitioner. The said Sanatan Halder instituted a suit against the opposite party (herein) being Title Suit No. 54 of 2002 before the Civil Court and obtained an order of injunction but the respondent in suppression of material fact and order of injunction granted by the Civil Court filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum and obtained an order dated 31.12.2012. Since the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the civil suit instituted by Sanatan Halder, it was not possible on the part of the electricity company to know about the order of injunction granted by the Court. It is stated by the petitioner that although the company proceeded for giving connection to the opposite party but was restrained by the said Sanatan Halder. The District Consumer Forum directed the company to provide connection to the opposite party (herein) and also passed an order of compensation and cost to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. It is further stated by the petitioner that the opposite party suppressed the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court at the time of moving the application before the District Consumer Forum. As the connection could not be provided to the petitioner/applicant the opposite party (herein) filed one execution case before the said District Consumer Forum who issued warrant of arrest against the present petitioner along with a lot of penal orders which were also passed against the present petitioner.

4. In the mean time the said Sanatan Halder preferred an application before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which was numbered as W.P. 13788 (W) of 2013 and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by passing the following order. The relevant portion of the said order is hereby reproduced below:-

“learned Counsel for the distribution company however submits that the pathway through which his client intends to lay the supply line would not disturb the property of the petitioner. In the event the supply line is drawn without interfering with the land in respect of which the declaratory decree has been obtained in the aforesaid suit, then distribution company shall be at liberty to do so. If the said route does not fall on any third party land, then the distribution company shall be entitled to obtain police assistance for laying such line in the event there is unnecessary objection from any busybody. If however the supply line is required to be carried through any third party land, then the provisions of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 shall have to be adhered to.”

5. Thereafter a petition was taken out at the behest of the petitioner in the said execution case by stating that the opposite party obtained the impugned order of warrant of arrest in suppression of material fact that there was an order of injunction by the Civil Court in installing the pole and meter over the land in question and that order of injection was totally kept concealed by the pet