IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

ORIGINAL SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

W.P.O. No. 296 of 2025

Ms. Hsieh Meek Kim

Versus

The Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd.

(CESC Ltd.) & Ors.

With

W.P.O. No. 819 of 2025

Mr. Niket Saraf & Anr.

Versus

CESC Limited & Ors.

Mr. Saumyen Datta

Mr. Bidish Ghosh

Mr. Tapan Sil

Mr. A. Bhar

.....For the petitioner in WPO/296/2025 and the respondent no. 6 in

WPO/819/2025.

Ms. Susmita Biswas Chowdhury … For the State in WPO/296/2025.

Mr. Soumabho Ghosh Mr. Varun Kothari Mr. Nikunj Berlia Mrs. Urvashi Jain Mrs. Arfa Jabeen .....For the respondent nos. 6&7 in WPO No. 296/2025 and for petitioner in WPO/819/2025.

Ms. Sukla Das Chandra … For the State in WPO/819/2025. Mr. Subir Sanyal Mr. Soham Sanyal .....For CESC in both the writ petitions.

Hearing Concluded On : 28.11.2025 Judgment on : 01.12.2025 Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioner in WPO No. 296 of 2025 has filed the writ application praying for a direction upon the respondents to give electric connection in the flats of the petitioner though a Low Tension connection on usual payment in the residential-cum-commercial apartments, situated within the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in holding No. 63, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata - 700016. One Prabha Devi Saraf, the private respondent no. 7 herein is having 50% right of ownership along with two other persons jointly having rest 50% of ownership.

2. The petitioner has purchased the entire share of Prabha Devi Saraf in the two (2) flats being Flat Nos. 4 and 5 at the first floor by way of registered conveyance deed in the year 2021. One Niket Saraf, the private respondent no. 6 claiming himself to be the son of the private respondent no. 7, continues to function as caretaker and manager of the affairs of the said apartment. The entirety of the said apartment receives electricity though High Tension Commercial line (HT-COMM line) provided by the CESC Ltd., the respondent no. 1 herein. The flats do not have individual meters, instead the electricity is provided though sub-meters from High Tension Commercial line provided in the said apartment, which the respondent nos. 6 and 7 are currently in-charge of the same.

3. Mr. Saumyen Datta, Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent nos. 6 and 7 regarding the payments of electricity and other amenities. The respondent no. 6 and 7 stopped the electric connection of the two flats of the petitioner. The petitioner has applied for grant of a new connection and new meter in her name exclusively before the respondent no. 1 on 19th October, 2024 through online portal of the respondent no. 1. The petitioner has received a communication from the respondent no. 5 on behalf of the respondent no. 1 on 9th November, 2024 wherein the application filed by the petitioner for grant of new connection was rejected on the ground that there already exists a HT Line at the said premises.

4. Mr. Datta submits that despite of payment of entire electricity bills, the respondent nos. 6 & 7 has deliberately withheld the electricity bills since the month of February, 2025, and despite of repeated requests, the respondent nos. 6 & 7 started demanding arbitrary amounts without raising any proper electricity bill. He submits that there is a disagreement between the petitioner and the respondent nos. 6 & 7 over the sum of payment of the maintenance and utility charges, though the petitioner has paid electricity consumption charges till the month of March, 2025. Despite payment of the electrical charges, the respondent nos. 6 & 7 has disconnected the electric supply of two flats of the petitioner on 18th March, 2025 at 07.00 p.m. without any prior notice to the petitioner. Immediately, the petitioner has served a notice to the respondent no. 6 on 19th March, 2025, requesting for restoration of electric connection but the respondent nos. 6 & 7 failed to restore the electric connection.

5. Mr. S