Sunil Kumar Shaw vs The Chairman on 10 April, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Sunil Kumar Shaw vs The Chairman on 10 April, 2012

Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                                                  1



         In The High Court At Calcutta
           Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                   Appellate Side.


Present:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.


              W.P.No.26568(W) of 2007
                Sunil Kumar Shaw
                       v.
        The Chairman, CESC Limited & Ors.


Mr.Srijib Chakraborty                    ... for the petitioner.

Mr.Somnath Bose.                         .. for the licensee.


Heard on:        April 10, 2012.

Judgement on: April 10, 2012.

The Court:- The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated December 11, 2007 is
seeking a mandamus commanding CESC, a licensee under the Electricity Act,
2003, to give him supply of electricity to the premises in question.

       The petitioner's case is that though as an occupier of the premises he is
entitled to supply of electricity, citing resistance put up by the private
respondents, CESC has refused to give him supply.

The case stated in para.2 of the WP is as follows:

"2.That your petitioner states that the father of the petitioner runs a tea stall in a tenanted premises situated at- 140/4, Benaras Road, Police Station-Golabari, District-Howrah, owned by the private respondents and the said business of the petitioner was continuing by the father of the petitioner, Jangli Shaw [since deceased]. It is pertinent to mention here that for the purpose of running the said business the petitioner obtained 'Trade License' from the concerned Howrah Municipal Corporation and the petitioner is also using a landline telephone connection in the said premises".

Over the course hearing counsel for the petitioner has produced a trade license dated October 16, 2006 issued by Howrah Municipal Corporation and a telephone bill for the month of June 2007 issued by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. to show that the petitioner is an occupier of the premises.

Affidavit of service has been filed stating that notice of the case has been sent to the private respondents. Acknowledgement card and the undelivered packet produced with the affidavit show that the private respondents received one notice and refused the second notice.

The case of the petitioner that he is an occupier of the premises has not been disputed by the private respondents. The petitioner has claimed that the private respondents are the owners of the premises, and that he, as the heir of the former tenant Jangli Shaw, is occupying and using the premises. CESC has filed an opposition and it has not disputed that the petitioner is an occupier of the premises.

Referring to the petitioner's case stated in paras.6 and 7 and the case stated in the opposition, counsel for CESC has submitted that CESC ready and willing to give supply could not give supply for resistance put up by the private respondents and will not be in a position to give supply unless the officer in charge of the local police station is directed to give necessary help at the petitioner's expense.

It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner's entitlement to supply is not in dispute.

The question is whether this Court should pass an order directing the officer in charge of the local police station to give CESC necessary help at the petitioner's expense so that CESC may give the petitioner supply of electricity.

No provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the regulations made thereunder create any obligation of the petitioner to pay police expense for getting supply of electricity to his premises. The police are in no way involved in the lis between CESE and the petitioner. Hence there is no reason for this Court to 3 examine the question why an order directing the police to help CESC should not be passed.

CESC, a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, was and still is under a statutory obligation, created by s.43 of the Act, to give the petitioner supply of electricity. The private respondents if were resisting access to the premises, then they were actually preventing CESC from discharging its statutory duties. Faced with the resistance CESC could not resign and leave the matter to the petitioner.

If police help was necessary, then CESC ought to have requisitioned such help, as it regularly does, of its own accord, for protecting its own interests, and raised bill on the petitioner, if law permitted. It is not for the petitioner to take police help step for facilitating the discharge of statutory duties by CESC. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has rightly alleged CESC's failure to discharge its statutory obligation.

For these reasons, I allow the WP and order as follows. Within a fortnight from the date the petitioner complies with all formalities and pays charge, if any, CESC shall give him supply of electricity. No costs. Certified xerox.

(Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J.) sm.

sm.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)