Form No. J.(2)

Item No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE HEARD ON: 05.03.2025 DELIVERED ON: 05.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

M.A.T. 144 of 2023 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 With I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2024 Smt. Anjana Samaddar Versus Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation & Ors.

Appearance:-

Mr. Sourav Banerjee ….. For the Appellant Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee Mr. Aniruddha Ganguly ……For the CESC Limited

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.)

In Re.: I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024

1. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.

2. There is delay of 18 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition and we find that sufficient cause has been shown for not being able to prefer the appeal within the period of limitation.

3. Accordingly, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

In Re.: M.A.T. 144 of 2023

4. This intra-Court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 28th November, 2022 in W.P.A. 19617 of 2018. The appellant had filed the writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents/CESC Limited to provide new metered electricity connection to the shop room of the appellant being, A-8, Calcutta Greens Commercial Complex (North Wing), 1050/2, Survey Park, Kolkata - 700075. The petitioner also challenged a communication sent to him by the respondents dated 5th December, 2017. The learned writ court after elaborately hearing the parties had dismissed the writ petition. The appellant is aggrieved by the said order and is before us by way of this appeal.

5. Two grounds raised by the appellant are that there is infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the respondents/CESC Limited has acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily by not providing individual electricity connection to the appellant’s shop room though such individual connection has been provided to the shop owners in the adjacent market. Thus, it is submitted that the stand taken by the CESC Limited is clearly discriminatory and offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. To support such contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. reported in (1993) 3 SCC 259. By referring to the relevant paragraphs of the said decision, it is submitted that the CESC Limited has not acted in a fair or a reasonable manner and the procedure, which has to be adopted by CESC Limited must satisfy the test of justness, fairness and reasonableness and the stand is clearly unfair, unreasonable and unjust.

6. The second contention, which was raised is that the market complex, where the appellant’s shop room is situated is a modern market complex, which has been constructed by the West Bengal Housing Board providing state of the art facilities and the reason given by the CESC Limited for not providing individual metered connection to the appellant’s shop room is wholly arbitrary and, therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with.

7. Further, it is submitted that in terms of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the appellant is entitled to individual electricity connection to her shop room, which is situated in the market complex. To support such an argument, reliance was placed in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) & Ors. reported in (2015) 2 SCC 438 and it is submitted that in the said case, it was held that the appellant therein was entitled to obtain electricity service connection from Tata Power and that the consumer cannot be called upon to seek for permission from the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (for brevity, “BEST”