CHANDRAKALA NAYAK Vs. CESC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although the matters were not heard analogously, common questions arise for consideration in all the three writ petitions. As such, the matters are being decided by a common order.

(2.) The petitioners pray for separate, new connections being given to their respective premises in their own names. It is contended that the petitioners, being tenants in respect of their respective premises, applied duly for such separate connections but the CESC Ltd. rejected their applications on the grounds of splitting of load and on technical considerations that allegedly make it extremely dangerous to have more than one source of supply for a particular unit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it is an essential and fundamental right of the petitioners to get electric supply at the premises. Moreover, Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 specifically confers a right on an occupier to get electric supply at the occupied premises.