Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Wbsedcl & Ors vs Sambhu Ghosh & Ors on 20 March, 2014
27
20.03.2014
mb/as
F. M. A. 1252 of 2013
WBSEDCL & Ors.
Versus
Sambhu Ghosh & Ors.
Mr. Srijan Nayakl,
Mr. Koushik Roy,
Mr. Raja Saha.
.....for the appellants.
The legality of the order dated 9.10.2012 passed by the
Single Bench in W.P.21176 (W) of 2012 has been questioned by
the appellant in the intra court appeal.
The respondent/petitioner had applied for new electricity
connection (domestic) for his premises. Earlier in W.P.10684 (W) of 2012, an order was passed on 11.6.2012 directing hearing of the parties.
After hearing, the Station Manager had concluded that in the event the petitioner is to get electricity connection, a wayleave permission will have to be taken from the private respondents before effecting electric connection over the common passage.
It was the case of the petitioner that the parties had been allowed to use the common passage as per settlement between them. Thus, common way had been allowed to be used for egress and ingress to the presmises. However, it was submitted that permission is necessary to be obtained for taking electricity line.
The Single Bench had directed the appellants/respondents to ascertain whether there exists an alternative route over which lines can be drawn and supply effected to the premises of the petitioner. In the event, there is no alternative way, then power under Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to be exercised.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition had been disposed of. Aggrieved thereby, the intra court appeal has been preferred.
Questioning the legality of the order, the learned counsel for the appellants/electricity Company has submitted that peremptory order could not have been issued. He has also submitted that the civil suit is pending by and between the parties wherein an order of status quo has been passed. However, no such order has been placed on record. There is no such pleading in the memo of appeal also. At the same time, the learned Counsel is unable to satisfy us that there is any injunction order restraining the appellants to effect electricity connection. In the absence thereof, we cannot accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants.
The direction which had been issued by the Single Bench so as to find out the alternative way and in absence of the same, to exercise power under Section 67 of the Act, 2003 cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality.
We do not find any ground so as to interfere in the order passed by the Single Bench. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that Section 67 is not applicable in this case as it relates to high-tension transmission line. We find that the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is baseless.
Accordingly, the appeal, being bereft of merits, is hereby dismissed.
(Joymalya Bagchi,J.) (Arun Mishra,Chief Justice)