IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the grant of electricity connection and subsequent private disputes were not within the writ jurisdiction, and no case for interference was made out.

JUDGMENT :

Prakash Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner challenging three different orders passed in different petitions being the order dated 26.04.2022 passed in W.P.A. No. 5480 of 2022, the order dated 22.06.2022 passed in W.P.A. No. 10460 of 2022 and the order dated 08.09.2022 passed in W.P.A. No. 16990 of 2022.

2. The facts as indicated in the orders under challenge are that the appellant had approached the writ Court with the plea that his father, respondent No. 5 in W.P.A. No. 5480 of 2022 had transferred his property comprising of the building in possession of the appellant and his father to the private respondent No. 6. The further plea was raised that the electricity meter at the premises was also transferred to the said respondent and at the instance of that respondent, electricity meter was disconnected, hence the appellant has claimed a new electricity connection in his name. In W.P.A. No. 5480 of 2022, learned Single Judge has passed the final order dated 26.04.2022 directing the CESC to hold an inspection at the premises in question for the purpose of assessing the feasibility and requisites for giving new electricity connection in the name of the appellant and thereafter to give connection to the appellant expeditiously if feasible on compliance of all formalities. It was kept open to the CESC personnel, if resisted at the time of carrying out such inspection and/or giving such connection, to approach the concerned police station and there was a direction to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station to give such assistance to the CESC personnel at the cost of the appellant.

3. The appellant had filed second petition being W.P.A. No. 10460 of 2022 and raised the plea that after installation of the meter, due to resistance of the private respondent, the appellant was not in a position to use the electricity meter. Learned Single Judge had disposed of the petition by leaving it open to the appellant to approach the appropriate criminal forum and/or civil forum for getting the adequate relief in this regard as the allegations in the petition were found to be within the ambit of the private dispute between the appellant and the private respondent.

4. The appellant had again filed the writ petition W.P.A. No. 16990 of 2022 seeking certain relief relating to enjoyment of the electricity against the licensee and private respondent. Learned Single Judge after taking note of the orders in the earlier petition has found the petition to be barred by res judicata.

5. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been deprived the electricity and that being the occupier, he is entitled to use the electricity and in support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. vs. Zora Singh and Others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 776 and in the matter of Molay Kumar Acharya vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, W. B. State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 Cal 47.

6. Learned Counsel for the CESC has submitted that the order passed in W.P.A. No. 5480 of 2022 has been duly complied with and the appellant has been given the electricity connection from the existing board and thereafter the CESC is not concerned with the private dispute between the appellant and the private respondent.

7. Learned Counsel for the private respondent has objected to the maintainability of the appeal against the three orders passed in three different petitions and has also submitted that the private respondent has purchased the entire property from the father of the appellant and the eviction suit is pending against the appellant and the appellant is a unauthorized occupier, therefore, writ is not a proper remedy.

8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has failed to satisfy this Court as to how one appe