Calcutta High Court
In Re: Sm. Angur Bala Parui vs Unknown on 8 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: AIR1999CAL102
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 5, Mr. Debabrata Bhattacharjee and the learned counsel for C.E.S.C, Mr. Soumitra Pal.
2. The petitioner is the tenant of the premises governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act by which the respondent Nos. 4-6 herein are joint landlords. The petitioner has made an application for supply of electricity to the said tenanted premises and has also complied with the requisite formalities including the deposit of money as directed by the electricity authority in that behalf. The electricity authorities have however not given the connection to the said tenanted premises in the occupation of the petitioner on the ground that an objection has been filed before them by the landlords of the premises (Annexure 'E' to the writ petition).
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the statutory duty is cast upon the electricity authorities to supply the electricity to the persons who fulfilled all the requisites and that the same cannot be denied arbitrarily much less on the objection of the landlords. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that supply of electricity is a matter between the petitioner and the electricity Department and upon fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therefor, the electricity authorities are bound to supply electricity.
4. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ralnamala Dasi v. Ratan Singh Bawa. reported in, . In the said judgment in paragraph 8, the Division Bench observed that by the Amendment Act of 1959 the words "owner and the occupier" in Section 12(2) of the Electricity Act, 1910 have been substituted by the words "owner or occupier". It was also held that the supply of electricity has now become a matter between the occupier and licensee under the Electricity Act and the landlords as owner cannot ordinarily stand in the way. In the light of the said judgment, the petitioner is entitled to the electricity connection, applied for. However, the learned Advocate for, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 contended that invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not appropriate or proper when efficacious alterative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.
5. Under Section 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act where the landlord refuses or withholds his consent of the supply of electricity to a tenant, the tenant has been conferred the right to apply to the Controller for appropriate orders. However, in view of the amendment to the Electricity Act, the consent of the landlord is no longer required, as held by Their Lordship in the said judgment. Therefore, in my view, the petitioner cannot be relegated to avail the remedy under Section 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. The electricity authorities being State within the meaning of Article 12, their action can be judicially reviewed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to held that the above writ petition is maintainable.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the electricity authorities that it is because of the objection and obstruction by the landlords that the electricity authorities have not been able to give effect to their intention to supply the electricity to the petitioner though the petitioner has fulfilled the condition precedent for supply of electricity.
8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the electricity authorities to supply new electric connection to the petitioner at premises No. 50, Kamini School Lane. Howrah Salkia. L.P. No. 301/3/1 within four weeks from dale, if necessary by obtaining police protection as may be required by them for carrying out the order hereby given.
9. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms without any order as to costs.
10. Let plain copies of this order duly counter-
signed by the Asstt. Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocate for the parties on usual undertaking.