Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S Precision Engineering Works And ... vs Cesc Limited And Others on 22 February, 2023
22nd February,
2023
(AK)
13
W.P.A 3581 of 2023
M/s Precision Engineering Works and another
Vs.
CESC Limited and others
Mr. Ayan Banerjee
Ms. Debjani Sengupta
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Saurav Chaudhuri
...for the CESC Limited.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioner no.1 is a sole proprietorship concern and the
petitioner no.2 is its sole proprietor.
Although the petitioners are tenants in respect of a
premises where the petitioners have been enjoying
electricity and operating their devices and tools by virtue
of such electricity connection for quite some time now,
the same was disconnected on January 12, 2023,
apparently at the instance of the respondent
no.5/landlady of the petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing for the CESC Limited submits on instruction that only on the application of the petitioner no.1 made through its proprietor was the electricity connection severed by the CESC Limited.
Learned counsel for the CESC Limited hands over copies of two documents, one being allegedly a communication by the petitioner no.1-concern and the 2 other an application by the same concern, both signed by one Satyen Chatterjee as the proprietor of petitioner no.1.
It is submitted that only on such application and upon due compliance of formalities, the CESC Limited disconnected the supply.
However, at least from the averments of the writ petition, it is palpable that Satyen Chatterjee, who communicated with the CESC Limited all along as proprietor of M/s. Precision Engineering works, the petitioner no.1, is not only not the proprietor of the petitioner no.1 but also is the husband of the private respondent-landlady Smt. Lata Chatterjee.
Such fact is reflected even from the cause title of the present writ petition.
Of course, it is expected that a Distribution Licensee shall undertake minimum enquiry/inspection to ascertain as to the veracity of the person making an application, at least whether the said person is actually the consumer of the electricity supply-in-question.
However, since several factual contentions have been raised by the CESC Limited, it would only be appropriate if the respondents were given an opportunity to use affidavits.
Accordingly, the respondents shall file their affidavit-in-opposition within three weeks from date. Reply, if any, shall be given within one week thereafter. 3
Liberty to the parties to mention for inclusion of the matter before the appropriate bench for hearing after the period fixed for filing affidavits expires.
However, in view of the cloud cast on the disconnection, the CESC Limited shall immediately restore the electricity connection of the petitioners, positively within 48 hours from now.
The petitioners shall continue to enjoy such electricity, subject to the result of the present writ petition, during the entire pendency of the writ petition, and, of course, subject to due payment of current electricity charges.
In the event any obstruction is raised by private respondent no.5 and/or her men and agents in such restoration of electricity connection to the petitioners by the CESC Limited, it will be open to the CESC personnel to approach the Inspector-in-Charge of the Golabari Police Station, that is, respondent no.4 for adequate police assistance.
If so approached, the respondent no.4 shall grant such assistance to the CESC personnel at the cost of the petitioners.
The documents relied on by learned counsel for the CESC Limited handed over in court today be kept on record.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)