SAMSUL HAQUE MOLLIK Vs. CESC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grievance of the petitioner is that though he is entitled to get supply of electricity from CESC, it declined to receive his application for supply, since no endorsement was made on it by the owner of the premises. His case is that he has been running a business from a part of the premises, and hence as an occupier of the premises, he is entitled to get supply of electricity in view of provisions of S. 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

(2.) Advocate for the petitioner contends that CESC is under a statutory obligation to give supply to the petitioner, when he is an occupier of the premises. He says that in a writ petition filed in the past by the owner of the premises, the petitioner was added as a respondent, and a prayer was made therein for an order restraining him from running business from the premises. He argues that the owner of the premises, though is entitled to file a suit for eviction of the petitioner, is not entitled to raise any objection regarding supply of electricity to him.

(3.) To my specific query about the capacity in which the petitioner came to occupy a part of the premises, advocate for the petitioner is unable to say anything. He only repeats that his client is an occupier of the premises. He refers me to the trade licence obtained by the petitioner.