Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Biswajit Palui vs West Bengal State Electricity ... on 26 September, 2011
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P.No.16048(W) of 2011
Sri Biswajit Palui
-vs-
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors.
Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty
Mr. Ranjan Saha ....for the petitioner
Mr. Sumit Roy ...for the Distribution Company
Mr. Sukdeb Chatterjee ...for the private respondents
Heard on : September 26, 2011 Judgment on : September 26, 2011 The Court : The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated September 16, 2011 is seeking a mandamus commanding West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, to give him supply of electricity to the premises in question.
The petition has been filed under one "Indian Electricity Act, 2003." Advocate concedes that no Act titled "Indian Electricity Act, 2003" exists. He has tendered apology for filing this petition under a non-existent Act.
Since the private respondents were objecting to supply of electricity, the petitioner moved the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that passed an order dated October 26, 2004 directing supply of electricity.
In 2006 the petitioner filed a partition suit. Since in compliance with the order of the District Forum the licensee did not give supply of electricity, he filed an application in the suit for an order permitting him to take supply of electricity. By an order dated August 5, 2010 the Civil Court permitted him to take supply. However, allowing an application of the defendant in the suit, subsequently the Civil Court recalled the order dated August 5, 2010 by an order dated August 19, 2010. Since supply could not be obtained, now the petitioner has decided to approach this Court.
In the case before the District Forum the officials of the licensee were opposite parties. For unknown reasons the petitioner abandoned the order. He did not take any step for its execution. The order obtained by him from the Civil Court in his suit was subsequently recalled by the Civil Court. When the petitioner's remedy, if any, was before the higher Civil Court, he decided to approach the Writ Court.
On the facts, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from the Writ Court. He has already initiated proceedings for the relief before the Civil Court that has refused the relief. By exercising power under art.226 order of the Civil Court dated August 19, 2010 cannot be made ineffective. Validity of the order, indirectly sought to be questioned in this petition, could be questioned only before the higher Civil Court.
For these reasons, the petition is dismissed making it clear that nothing herein shall prevent the petitioner from moving the appropriate Court seeking relief according to law. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sb