Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ceasar Sen vs The Calcutta Electric Supply ... on 11 April, 2023
11th April,
2023
(AK)
09
W.P.A 7401 of 2023
Ceasar Sen
Vs.
The Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited and
others
Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee
Mr. Abhishek Sikdar
Ms. S. Chakraborty
...for the petitioner.
Dr. Madhusudan Saha Ray
...for the CESC Limited.
Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee
Mr. Shuvajit Bose
...for the private respondent.
The present writ petition has been filed with the patently mala fide intention to make speculative attempts to harass and malign the private respondent.
In fact, the suspicion of racial discrimination cannot be ruled out keeping in view the names of the petitioner and the private respondent.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, in his usual oratory, that on the last occasion when a similar matter between the parties had come up before this court, the learned advocate-on-record for the petitioner therein had made incorrect submissions. 2 However, the same learned advocate-on-record is present in court today and the court is not convinced that it was so at the said relevant juncture.
In the order dated February 17, 2023 passed in WPA 1361 of 2023, an allegation had been made on behalf of the present writ petitioner that two service connections were sought to be taken by the present private respondent at the premises-in-question.
It was observed by this court on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that such contention was absolutely justified.
It was further recorded, in a caustic vein, that in other cases it has been noticed that the CESC Limited has been consistently taking an objection, when directed to give a separate service connection to a premises, to give more than one connection to a single premises, unless there is an exceptional circumstance, which was held to be found absent in the present matter.
It was further observed by the court that in the absence of any exceptional circumstance, there was no reason why the rule should be violated or deviated from by the CESC Limited in that case.
In fact, the CESC Limited, in view of the circumstances noted therein, where also directed to initiate a proceeding against the private respondent Nima Mukhia under Section 135 of the 2003 Act, since as per 3 the allegation of the CESC Limited and as per circumstances of the case, it was held to be evident that an unauthorized use of electricity was involved, which may even tantamount to theft.
However, it transpires at the present juncture that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner on the said occasion regarding the private respondent having sought two service connections in the same premises was erroneous, for which a modification application to the order dated February 17, 2023 has been filed by the writ petition.
Unfortunately, the said modification application was filed only subsequent to a similar application having been filed by the private respondent pointing out the said error in the order.
Coming to the present writ petition, in relief (iii) thereof, the writ petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 and its men and agents to immediately disconnect the new metered connection, if given to the private respondent in view of non-compliance of Section 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
In relief (iv), a writ in the nature of mandamus has been sought to immediately take steps against the owners of "Tibetan Delight", a restaurant run by the private 4 respondent, under Section 135 and Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, however, it transpires that no such theft of electricity or pilferage was detected in the present case.
That apart, the petitioner now submits through learned counsel that the intended crux of the present challenge was actually to the assessment made by the CESC Limited in respect of the unauthorized use of electricity, allegedly by the private respondent.
The ground for such challenge, it is submitted by the petitioner, is that the said assessment was made incorrectly and disproportionately and should have been on a much higher side.
However, the petitioner, merely in the capacity of being a landlord of the adjacent premises, has no locus standi whatsoever to prefer a challenge against an order of final order of assessment passed against the private respondent in any manner whatsoever.
The petitioner was neither affected by the said order in any way, nor was involved in the allegations made in connection with the proceedings-in-question.
It appears patently that the petitioner's intention is to disrupt the restaurant business being run by the private respondent from the premises-in-question by hook or by crook by filing repeated litigations. 5
However, this time, the court has been able to see through such attempts of the petitioner, in view of the surrounding circumstances as discussed above.
In fact, probably the caustic remarks made in the order dated February 17, 2023 in WPA 1361 of 2023 were not deserved by the CESC Limited or the private respondent at that juncture.
In any event, it is no use to cry over spilt milk. However, irrespective of whatever order was passed in WPA 1361 of 2023, at the present juncture, the private respondent has applied in accordance with law and, upon compliance of all formalities, the new electricity connection has already given by the CESC Limited to the private respondent.
The petitioner not only does not have any business to seek a disconnection of the same on frivolous grounds, but the attempt on such score by the petitioner is also patently mala fide in view of the circumstances of the case as indicated above.
Accordingly, WPA 7401 of 2023 is dismissed on contest.
However, in view of the harassive attempts made by the petitioner and the prolonged litigation which the respondents herein were compelled to suffer due to such attempts of the petitioner, the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 jointly and an 6 equivalent amount of Rs.50,000/- as costs to the respondent no.3.
It is expected that such quantum of costs shall operate as a deterrent against future frivolous litigations being filed by the petitioner, thereby wasting the time of the respondent and/or the other litigants, who are compelled to await justice before the court of law which is unnecessarily engaged in deciding such frivolous applications as the present one and wasting time on them.
Such costs shall be paid by the petitioner to the respective respondents as per above direction within a month from date.
Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)