NEMAI HAIT Vs. CESC LIMITED AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for granting of a new A.C. electric connection to the premises at 82, Belilious Lane, Howrah-1 (hereinafter called the said premises). The petitioner is staying in the said premises since childhood and is now is staying there with his family. In support of the said fact, the petitioner has disclosed various documents like letters of Municipal Authorities written in respect of the said premises which had been addressed to the petitioner. The petitioner has referred to three such letters written to him by the Howrah Municipal Corporation in respect of the said premises. The petitioner has also disclosed the telephone bill in respect of the said premises in his name and from the bill which has been annexed to the writ petition it appears that date of installation of the said telephone is sometime in the Sept., 1996. In the affidavit-in-reply filed in the proceeding by the petitioner, he has also disclosed a ration card in his name with the address of the said premises. On the basis of these documents the petitioner wants to show that he has been staying in the said premises for quite some time and is not a stranger to the said premises nor he a trespasser.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he applied for electric connection in respect of the said premises on 24.02.99. The said application was made by him for obtaining a new A.C.connection. In answer to that, the second respondent namely the District Engineer, Howrah Regional Officer, C.E.S.C. Limited by a letter dated 24.2.99 informed the petitioner that inspection will be held on 4.3.99. But the petitioner requested for inspection on another date. Thereafter the officers of the C.E.S.C wanted to have inspection but could not undertake the same as they were denied access to the meter board and was resisted by the private respondents. To that effect a letter was written to the petitioner by the C.E.S.C authorities to furnish a written consent from the registered consumers of the said premises that they are agreeable to the change of supply from D.C. to AC to enable the C.E.S.C to complete the change over from D.C service to A.C service. To that the petitioner wrote back by saying that the entire D.C connection has been disconnected. Thereafter the petitioner was informed that a written objection was filed by the private respondents to the proposed supply of the new A.C connection in the said premises. In the petition filed by the private respondents, they have referred to two proceedings. One is a title suit pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division, Howrah) being Title Suit No. 42 of 1995 and the other is a writ petition pending in this Court being writ petition No. 18185(W) of 1997. The Court has pursued the plaint filed in the said suit which has been disclosed in this proceeding and on the perusal of the plaint of that suit. It does not appear that the question of changing electric meter from D.C to AC in the said premises is an issue in the said title suit. The said title suit is in respect of certain properties and the petitioner is not even a party in the said title suit.

(3.) So far as the writ petition is concerned this court finds that in the said writ petition also the petitioner is not a party. The complain in the said writ petition is about the inaction of the authorities in recording the names of Sunil Kr. Maity and Bimal Kumar Maity in the record of rights in question. In con- nection with the said pleas of the Sunil Kumar Maity and Bimal Kumar Maity, a learned Judge of this Court has granted an order of status quo as regards possession. This Court is, therefore, of the view that pendency of these two proceedings has nothing to do with the question of considering the petitioner's prayer in this writ petition.