SAJJAN KR AGARWAL Vs. CESC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, registered as W.P. No. 13215(W) of 2000, has been filed by five persons, jointly, as petitioners, against 'Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited' (in short 'CESC') and its two Officers.

(2.) Premises No. 159, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700 017 is a twelve storeyed buildings. M/s. Onkarmull Goenka, a registered partnership firm, is the owner of said multi-storeyed building. The firm let out different portions of the building to tenants. CESC had been supplying electricity to consumers of the building. The firm was one of the consumers. Sri Onkarmull Goenka, since deceased and Sri Prahalad Rai Goenka, his son, both of whom were partners of the firm, were also consumers of CESC in their individual capacities. As tenants under the firm in the building, all the petitioners used to consume electricity supplied by CESC to the firm and three other consumers through four meters against four consumer numbers. For non payment of outstanding dues amounting Rs. 14,18,671.40p CESC disconnected supply through the said four meters. Outstanding dues standing in the name of the firm alone was to the tune of Rs. 12,17,198.60p. The disconnection of supply through the said four meters resulted in non availability of supply of electricity to all the petitioners from CESC. In the circumstances, petitioners individually applied to CESC for getting independent supply of electricity through separate meters to be installed in the building. By letters all dated June 17, 2000 CESC informed the petitioners that unless the outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 13,28,489.37p were paid and appropriate security deposit was made, CESC would not be in a position to supply electricity to the petitioners. Challenging such decision of CESC the writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Kundu, learned advocate appearing for he petitioners has contended that in view of the judgment and order dated September 10, 1999 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 1988 of 1997 and which was later on affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court, CESC was not entitled to demand payment of the outstanding dues as a condition precedent to giving independent and fresh supply connections to the petitioners; that the dues, having fallen outstanding on account of consumption of electricity by late Onkarmull Goenka, both in authorised and unauthorised manner, were not attributable to the consumption of electricity by the petitioners and as such, the petitioners had no liability to pay such dues; that in view of findings recorded in paragraph 5 of said judgment and order dated September 10, 1999 the dues in question were not recoverable from any person excepting the heirs and legal representative of late Onkarmull Goenka; and that even otherwise petitioners could not be called upon to pay the outstanding dues of the landlord firm as a condition precedent to getting independent new supply connection.