SK SAMSUD DOHA Vs. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has approached this Court challenging inaction on the part of the respondent-Electric Company (hereinafter referred to as "WBSEDCL") to provide electric connection to the petitioner's premises. The case of the petitioner is that he is a co-sharer of the premises in question. A partition suit is pending by and between the petitioner and the private-respondent Nos. 5 to 7 herein being Title Suit No. 42 of 2004 pending before learned 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Howrah. The petitioner further states that by order dated 20.7.2010 the learned civil court has directed the petitioner and the private-respondents to maintain status quo as to nature, character and possession of the suit property. It is pertinent to point out that WBSEDCL is not a party to the said suit. On 3rd June, 2009 the petitioner made an application to WBSEDCL for electric connection. Spot verification was made by WBSEDCL and a quotation of Rs. 14,692/- was also raised on the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has deposited the said amount. Thereafter due to the objection on the part of the private-respondents, WBSEDCL appears to have failed and/ or neglected to provide electric supply to the petitioner.

(2.) In spite of repeated service, nobody appears on behalf of the private-respondents. No affidavit has also been filed on their behalf in spite of opportunity given to them.

(3.) The WBSEDCL has filed affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition. From the said affidavit it appears that the crux of the reason for not effecting supply is that there is a civil dispute pending by and between the petitioner and the private respondents with regard to title and possession of the premises and that due to obstruction on the part of the private respondents the said WBSEDCL was unable to erect electric poles in the land claimed by the private respondents to effect such supply. Further case made out by WBSEDCL in its affidavit-in-opposition is that necessary way leave had to be provided by the petitioner for effecting supply and since the petitioner had failed to provide the same, such supply could not be effected. In support of such submission, learned counsel appearing for the WBSEDCL refers to Regulation 3.2.1 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standards of Performance of Licensees Relating to Consumer Services) Regulations, 2010, (hereinafter referred to as Regulations, 2010) wherein it is provided that way leave permission in specified format must be submitted by the applicant for obtaining supply.