Form No. J(2)

N THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/576/2025

ASHOKE BHOWMICK

Vs

CESC LIMITED AND ORS

PRESENT :

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

For Petitioner Mr. Krishna Das Poddar, Adv.

Ms. Mondira Barman, Adv.

For CESC Mr. Ram Chandra Gucchait, Adv.

For Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Adv.

Mr. Vishwarup Acharyya, Adv.

Mr. Dhiman Banerjee, Adv.

Heard on : 19.08.2025 Judgment on : 19.08.2025

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J. :

Upon urgency being pleaded on mentioning and since the regular

determination has been assigned to this Court, this writ petition has been

taken up for consideration by publishing in the daily supplementary list.

Facts:

1. The solitary grievance of the petitioner is that despite due application being submitted for obtaining electricity connection at the subject premises,

the CESC authority has failed to provide electricity connection.

Submissions :

2. Mr. Sabir Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 submits that they are the brothers of the writ petitioner. Owing to a property dispute involving the self-same premises where the petitioner claims one floor being the third floor of the premises, the brothers are at logger head as co-sharers of the self-same immovable property.

3. Mr. Ahmed has placed an order dated May 15, 2025 passed by a co- ordinate Bench in WPA/9992/2025, the same is taken on record. The order shows that the three brothers being logger head with each other, this writ petitioner has filed the writ petition alleging police in action and claiming protection against allegedly threat exercised by the private respondents herein on the petitioner. The co-ordinate Bench passed direction upon the jurisdictional police authority to keep strict vigil at the local along with other consequential directions.

4. Mr. Ahmed submits that after the said order was passed, the petitioner served a notice dated May 23, 2025 through its learned advocate, a copy is taken on record, wherefrom it appears that the petitioner neither was nor possession of the premises. The petitioner offered a particular amount to pay to the private respondents and requested them upon receiving such sum to handover possession of the third floor to the petitioner. The said sum was offered as the alleged construction cost. These facts according to Mr. Ahmed shows that the petitioner is still not in possession of the premises.

5. This writ petition has been filed in gross suppression of facts and suppressing said order of the co-ordinate bench dated May 15, 2025. Referring to paragraph 5 of the writ petition he submits mere photographs could not be suffice to show that the petitioner is in possession.

6. He further submits that on the ground of suppression alone, this writ petition should be dismissed. Unless the amount tendered by the petitioner is paid, he cannot be put into possession.

7. On query being raised by this Court, Mr. Ahmed submits that the private respondents as of now, has not initiated either any civil proceeding or any criminal proceeding against the writ petitioner.

8. Mr. Guchhait, learned Counsel for CESC submits that on three occasions CESC officials have visited the premises for providing electricity connection to the petitioner at the existing meter board(loop meter) after due inspection and on each occasion CESC officials were vehemently resisted by the private respondent nos. 5 & 6. Accordingly, CESC could not carry out its statutory obligation.

Decision :

9. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this Court that, the private respondents have not denied the ownership of the petitioner, as a co-owner of the premises. Even if, a co-owner is not in possession of a joint property, unless partitioned, such a co-owner has right, title and interest on every inch of the undivided property.

10. The law is equally well settled that subject to compliance of all statutory requirements and subject to payment of