Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Lakhi Devi Nathany vs C.E.S.C. Ltd on 27 November, 2017

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Debangsu Basak

                             WP No. 1485 of 2003
                             GA No. 3128 of 2003
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                               ORIGINAL SIDE


                             LAKHI DEVI NATHANY
                                    Versus
                                C.E.S.C. LTD.


  BEFORE:

  The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK

  Date : 27th November, 2017.


  For Petitioner : Mr. Amritam Mondal, Advocate
                   Ms. Rituparna Chatterjee, Advocate

  For CESC Ltd.: Mr. Mihir Kundu, Advocate


      The Court : The application and the writ application are taken up together

for hearing.

      None appears in support of the application being G.A. No. 3128 of 2003.

      Learned Advocate for the writ petitioner submits that the CESC authorities

are purporting to grant electric supply to persons who are not connected with the

premises in question. He submits that the petitioner is 1/3rd owner of the

premises. It is claimed by the CESC authorities that the persons who have been

sought to be given electric connections are connected with the owners of the

other 2/3rd shares.
                                            2




         GA No. 3128 of 2003 is an application made by such persons for addition

as a party respondent in the present writ petition. None appears for such

applicants.

In such circumstances, GA No. 3128 of 2003 is dismissed for default. So far as the present writ petition is concerned, there subsists an interim order dated August 1, 2003 restraining the CESC authorities from installing any new meter at the premises in question without further leave of the Court.

The interim order is dated August 1, 2003. A period in excess of 14 years has elapsed from the date of such interim order.

CESC authorities are represented. Learned Advocate for the CESC authorities, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ petition, submits that Somen Mitra never applied for electric connection at the premises concerned.

In such circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of by restraining the CESC authorities from granting any electric supply at the premises concerned without the due process of law.

WP No. 1485 of 2003 is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) SN.

AR(CR)