MD AFZAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner claiming to be in user and occupation of a flat situated on the first floor at premises No. 3, B.R. 6th Lane, Thana Makua Lichubagan, Danesh Sekh Lane, P.S. Sankrail, Howrah, has applied before the C.E.S.C. Ltd., the respondent No. 5 for electricity connection in his said flat and deposited the connection charges. However, because of the obstruction of the private respondent No. 7, no electricity connection could have been provided by the respondent No. 5, CESC authority. It is the case of the writ petitioner whenever the employees of the respondent No. 5, CESC were trying to give electricity connection, the private respondent No. 7, the owner/developer of the premises in question, obstructed them. It is his further case that due to such obstruction, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing a writ application being W.P. No. 20762(W) of 2012 and on October 5, 2012, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ application directing the respondent No. 5 to supply electricity to the petitioner's flat within three weeks from the date of receipt of that order upon compliance of the formalities, if any, by the petitioner and subject to the decision in the appeal pending before the State Commission. Now, it is his case that even after such order, the respondent No. 7 is still making obstruction and due to that, the respondent No. 5 is not able to give connection to his flat and therefore, he is suffering tremendous inconvenience with the other members of his family. It is submitted that although the aforesaid incident was reported to the police but the police is not taking any action and is not providing any assistance to the employees of the respondent No. 5, CESC, so as to enable them to give electricity connection to the petitioner's flat in question.

(2.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7 first disputed the writ petitioner's right, title and interest over the flat in question. He submitted that the writ petitioner is a trespasser. He further submitted that even assuming that he is a lawful occupier and if there is any obstruction put forward by his client, then in that case, the respondent No. 5 is to take recourse to the provision of Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 framed under the Electricity Act, 2003.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 submitted that the said provision is not attracted in this case because already there is an existing supply line at the premises in question. He further submitted that however, the respondent authority is ready and willing to give connection but only to avoid any breach of peace and public tranquility in the locality, the police authority may be directed to be present at the time of giving such connection.