Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Putul Maity vs The State Of W.B. & Ors on 17 December, 2014

Author: Patherya

Bench: Patherya

                                                    1


42. 17-12-2014          W P 31216 (W) of 2013
Sd.   Ct. 8

                   Putul Maity vs. The State of W.B. & Ors.


                    Mr. P. Bhattacharrya..For the petitoiner.

                    Mr. S. Mondal ... licensing company.

                    Mr. S.P. Pahari
                    Mr. A. Prodhan
                    Mr. T.K. Mahapatra..For the private respondents.

By this writ petition the petitioner seeks removal of the pole installed in the common path adjacent to plot no. 517 as such installation prevents her egress and ingress from the pond where the petitioner carries on pisciculture.

A report was sought from the distribution company and such report has been filed this day. To the report a sketch map has been enclosed wherefrom it appears that in Dag no. 517 four persons reside

- Putul, Dilip, Samiran and Satyaranjan. It is Satyaranjan, respondent no. 5 who seeks electrical connection and it is only to provide new electrical connection to his premise that a new pole has been installed in the common pathway. A sketch map has also been annexed to the writ petition wherefrom the existence of the pond finds no mention but a moram path to the eastern side of plot no. 517 and southern side of plot no. 517 finds mention. The pond of the writ petitioner is opposite to her plot.

This day, Goutam Barua, Assistant Engineer and Station Manager, Chaitanyapur is present in Court and submits that the moram path in the southern side is connected to the main road.

If this be so then the reason given by the petitioner, namely, egress and ingress has been stopped and her business will be affected, is incorrect. In fact, on the northern side of the Plot No. 517, there exists plot no. 512, 514 and 515. Therefore, the northern side is land locked and the question of the petitioner carrying her products or produce to the land lock area cannot arise because she will require to ferry her products to the market place, and as a moram path exists adjacent to her pond, the question of any obstruction caused to egress and ingress where the pole has been erected, cannot arise. This is the only reason for seeking removal of the pole from its present position and in view of the discussion above, no such obstruction is evident. Accordingly, this application merits no order and is dismissed.

Report filed by the distribution company be kept on record. Another reason for not passing any order is that the portion in the possession of the writ petitioner is to the extreme south of the subject plot and the pole has been erected away from her plot. Therefore, even to the portion in her occupation no obstruction to her egress and ingress will be caused.

Photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties, if applied for.

( Patherya, J. )