jks 17.03.2025 WPA 4346 of 2025 Shefali Khatun Bibi Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Moniruzzaman Mr. Jahangir Badsha … … for the Petitioner Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee … … for the WBSEDCL Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Station Manager, Pachundi CCC, the petitioner, in this writ petition, prays for a new electricity connection at the petitioner’s premises.

Learned counsel appearing for WBSEDCL refers to Clause 3 of the Notification dated 15th September, 2021 which states: “If any applicant/intending consumer/ consumer submits any application for new connection(s) with the intention of splitting the load to obtain the benefit of lower charges or furnishes wrong/ inaccurate false statements, his application would be liable to be rejected under the provision of the Act, or the regulations made thereunder, and 25% of payments / deposits if already made by him by way of charges for obtaining new connection in terms of these regulations, shall be forfeited by the distribution licensee before the rest of the charges is refunded to him. While rejecting the application the consumer/intending consumer is to be intimated in writing about the ground for rejection. It will be the onus of the applicant to prove that the application for new connection is not for the purpose of splitting the load. For any dispute in this regard the applicant intending consumer/ consumer may lodge his grievances along with all necessary documents before the Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO) of the said Licensee as per provisions made in Grievance Redressal Regulations for redressal. If the affected consumer/ intending consumer is not satisfied with the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer or does not receive any order from that Grievance Redressal Officer within the time specified in the Grievance Redressal Regulations he can approach the Ombudsman for redressal of his grievances as per provisions made in the Grievance Redressal Regulations.”

Learned counsel further submits that as per the notification, the petitioner should first prefer an application before the Grievance Redressal Officer and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

On perusal of the notification dated 15^th September, 2021, it is evident that the writ petitioner, before challenging the order of Station Manager, Pachundi CCC, should have ventilated his grievances before the Grievance Redressal Officer as required under Clause 3 of the said notification. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the Grievance Redressal Officer for appropriate relief. However, it is made clear that the if the petitioner approaches the Grievance Redressal Officer with the grievances, an order must be passed by the Grievance Redressal Officer upon hearing all the necessary parties within six weeks from date.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)