ROHIT CARGO MOVERS Vs. CESC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated April 26, 2023, a prayer of the private respondent for holding an inspection through a Special Officer was refused.

(2.) The context of the prayer can be found in the crux of the dispute between the parties. The petitioner, claiming to be in settled possession of the disputed property, sought an electricity connection in its name. The licensee/CESC Limited does not have any objection to give the same, subject to compliance of all formalities by the petitioner. However, the private respondent no.5 objects on the ground that the said respondent is in exclusive possession of the property and, by way of taking an electricity connection, the petitioner is seeking to encroach upon the property.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the private respondent no.5 that the petitioner has failed to show settled possession, which is the sine qua non for getting an electricity connection even within the contemplation of Sec. 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for the sake of brevity, 'the 2003 Act').