Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rasamoy Maity vs The Chairman on 18 February, 2015
Author: Patherya
Bench: Patherya
1
29. 18-02-2015 W P 31807 (W) of 2014
Sd. Ct. 8
Rasamoy Maity vs. The Chairman, WBSEDCL Ltd. & Ors.
Mr. A. Rahaman ..For the petitioner.
Mr. G.Roy ..For the licensing company.
Md. K. B. Bulbul..For the respondent no. 5.
Md. Kutubuddin..For the respondent no. 6.
By this writ petition the petitioner seeks removal of bamboo poles and replacement of bamboo poles by installation of 3 PCC poles.
At the time of application quotation was issued by the distribution company to the petitioner for installation of 3 PCC poles but no PCC poles were installed; bamboo poles were installed and temporary connection effected, according to the petitioner and the private respondent no. 6. While this connection being temporary is disputed by counsel for the distribution company who submits that it was permanent connection effected on 24th October 2009.
Irrespective of whether it is temporary connection or permanent connection, bamboo poles cannot be installed for an indefinite period of time for giving connection. Money for installation of PCC poles has been taken by the distribution company. Accordingly, PCC poles are to be erected. While the distribution company is ready and willing to erect PCC poles an objection has been raised by the private respondent no. 6 who is present personally in Court this day. It has been submitted by 2 him that he has no objection if the PCC poles are erected on the concrete road which belongs to the PWD Department or on plot no.
661. The bamboo poles, if erected on plot no. 666, ought to be removed as the said plot exclusively belongs to him as per the decree dated 29th February 2012.
Having considered the contentions of the parties supply by erection of bamboo poles cannot be allowed to be continued as money for erection of PCC poles was taken by the distribution company from the petitioner.
Accordingly, the bamboo poles be replaced by PCC poles but at the time of replacement the same, let no pole be erected on plot no. 666 which exclusively belongs to private respondent no. 6. One pole be erected on the concrete road which belongs to the PWD Department and other two poles may be erected on plot no. 661 which is comprised in the petitioner's share in the said plot and in 633 which also belongs to the petitioner. As an appeal being Title Appeal No. 37 of 2012 has been filed, installation of the poles in 661 will be subject to the result of the appeal.
This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contention of all parties in appeal and will not create any equity in favour of the petitioner in respect of plot no. 661.
In view of the aforesaid, this application is disposed of. Steps be taken by the respondent no. 3 in accordance with law. 3 Let report dated 7th July 2014 and the information slip in respect of Title Appeal No. 37 of 2012 be kept with the record.
Photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties, if applied for.
( Patherya, J. )