17.04.2026 KAUSHIK WPA 16782 of 2025 SUNITA BENIA VS.

CESC LIMITED AND ANR.

Mr. Indranil Halder ….for the Petitioner The petitioner seeks a fresh electricity connection for commercial purposes. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that despite having applied for new electricity connection, the respondents have refused to grant any such connection.

On behalf of the respondent CESC Limited, it is submitted that the petitioner is already enjoying an electricity connection and is deriving electricity supply from one of the three meters (i.e. Meter No. 6149841) in the name of Central Kolkata Prerna Foundation, Strand Bank Road. In such circumstances, in view of the extant Regulations framed by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission any fresh connection would tantamount to splitting of load which is impermissible. In any event, there are serious technical difficulties in providing a fresh electricity connection to the petitioner. Accordingly, there is no question of allowing any fresh connection in favour of the petitioner and the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

The admitted facts of this case reveal that the petitioner is running a road side tea shop and is already deriving supply from one of the meters standing in the name of Central Kolkata Prerna Foundation, Strand Bank Road. It also appears from the Report filed by CESC Ltd. that after carrying out an inspection there are numerous stalls in the same location and all of them are enjoying similar electricity connections from a commercial meter in the name of Central Kolkata Prerna Foundation. In such circumstances, any fresh connection meter for commercial purposes would tantamount to splitting of load and is impermissible.

There are also serious and technical difficulties which have been highlighted by CESC Ltd. which cannot be gone into this writ petition. It appears that the concerned premises is a hutment consisting of several RTS shops/shanties lined one after another. In these circumstances, allowing a separate new electricity connection to the writ petitioner would open the floodgates which may not only be dangerous but also technically challenging. There is also a serious risk in view of the common service connection being about 150 meters away from the shop of the petitioner. In addition, there are multiple supply lines, wires, fittings and apparatus which may lead to electrical hazards. This may also cause a real and imminent danger to life and property. In this background, it is also in public interest that such connection should not be granted.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.

(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)