Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Tapas Ranjan Das vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 9 January, 2023
D/L. 19.
January 9, 2023.
MNS.
WPA No. 28744 of 2022
Sri Tapas Ranjan Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and others
Mr. Debashis Sinha,
Ms. Sharmistha Dhar,
Mr. Soumen Nanda,
Mr. Amritabha Maity
... for the petitioner.
Ms. Bandana Basu
...for the WBSEDCL.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the petitioner is handicapped by
disconnection of electricity by the West Bengal
State Electricity Distribution Company Limited
(WBSEDCL) without any fault of the petitioner, for
which the petitioner and his family, even
containing a minor infant, are suffering.
It is submitted that, in the garb of
replacement of an electricity meter at the
premises of the petitioner, that too on the request
of the petitioner to inspect in view of there being a
flame at the electricity meter-in-question, the
WBSEDCL took the electricity meter and instead
2
of replacing it, subsequently clamped a case of
theft of electricity.
In that regard, in connection with the
proceeding under Section 135 of the Electricity
Act, 2003 (2003 Act), an anticipatory bail was
obtained by the petitioner upon deposit of 50% of
the alleged dues. However, it is contended that
the disconnection, without any prior notice to the
petitioner and in the pretext of altering the
previously defective meter, is patently mala fide
and the petitioner is entitled to immediate
restoration of the electricity connection.
Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner places reliance on an unreported
judgement of the Supreme Court dated June 25,
2013 (Dr. Meena Chaudhary @ Dr. Meena
P.N.Singh Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and
Ors.), where the Supreme Court has, inter alia,
observed in the context of a case where an
allegation of theft of electricity was pending, that if
for some reason or the other, the meter is no
longer there and the registered consumer is no
longer willing for the supply of electricity, the
occupier of the premises is entitled as of her own
right under Section 43 to supply of electricity and
respondent no. 1, that is, the Distribution
3
Licensee therein, should have ensured that such supply was restored to the petitioner after complying with all necessary formalities as provided under the Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder.
It is argued that the right to get electricity supply is a part of the right to live as ensured by Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as guaranteed under Section 43 of the 2003 Act, which cannot be curtailed in the manner as done in the present case by the WBSEDCL.
Learned counsel for the WBSEDCL controverts the allegations made by the petitioner and submits that the writ petition has been filed upon suppression of relevant facts.
It is submitted that the WBSEDCL is in possession of a document which indicates that at the time of issuing a seizure list with regard to the theft alleged against the petitioner's meter, the petitioner himself had signed the same and now cannot resile from the said position by alleging that there was no disconnection on the charge of theft of electricity, but merely in the garb of replacing a defective meter.
Be that as it may, since documents are sought to be relied on by the parties, the 4 respondents are directed to file their affidavit(s)- in-opposition incorporating all relevant documents on which they want to rely by January 20, 2023. Affidavit-in-reply(replies) thereto, if any, shall be filed by January 25, 2023.
The matter shall next be listed for hearing on January 30, 2023.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)