Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Shibsankar Chail vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 February, 2012
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.1173(W) of 2012
Sri Shibsankar Chail
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Kazi Safiullah
Mr. Kazi Abrarullah ...for the petitioner
Mr. Tapas Ballav Mandal ...for the State
Mr. C.R. Panda ...for the licensee
Heard on : February 1, 2012
Judgment on : February 1, 2012
The Court : The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated January 17,
2012 is seeking the following principal reliefs:
"(i) ..A Writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents
no. 4 and 5 and their men and agents be issued directing them to give electricity connection to the residential house of this petitioner from the nearest existing electricity pole standing at plot no. 1034 of Mouza Jhapandanga, P.S. Jamalpur, District Burdwan;
(ii) ..An order of prohibition and injunction be issued against respondent no. 6 restraining him from making any obstruction and creating any trouble at the time of giving electricity connection to the house of the petitioner by the respondent no. 4 and 5."
Counsel for the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner applied for supply of electricity to his premises in 2007. Inspite of an order of the Ombudsman under s.42 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the licensee has not given him supply. When the pole is available, for wrongful resistance put up by the private respondent the licensee has remained inactive. Using the pole the licensee should give supply.
It is evident that the licensee was always and still is ready and willing to give supply of electricity to the petitioner. Hence the allegation that the licensee has remained inactive cannot be accepted. The real questions are whether the licensee has any power to decide in what capacity the private respondent is putting up the resistance and whether it can break and remove the resistance for giving supply of electricity to the petitioner's premises.
No provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the licensee to decide in what capacity the private respondent is putting up resistance and to break and remove the resistance for giving supply of electricity to the petitioner's premises. Nor do I find any reason to decide the questions in exercise of power under art.226. The licensee's failure to break and remove the resistance put up by the private respondent cannot amount to its failure to discharge its statutory obligation under s.43 of the Act.
In my opinion, the petitioner's remedy, if any, was before the Civil and Criminal Courts. An order if passed by these Courts directing the police to break and remove the resistance would have resolved the problem. Whether such Courts will pass an order for the purpose is another matter. But in the name of inaction or failure in the discharge of duty on the part of the licensee power under art.226 cannot be exercised for deciding a private dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent.
For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sb