NAYAK MALIK Vs. CESC LTMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the action taken by CESC to give supply of electricity to the third respondent

(2.) Facts are this. On February 3.2003 the third respondent applied for supply of electricity to his premises. He wanted CESC to give supply through a piece of land which according to him was owned and possessed by him. The second petitioner submitted a petition dated August 4, 2003 requesting CESC not to give supply to the third respondent using the land in question. He categorically stated in his objection that the piece of land sought to be used by the third respondent was his property. On receipt of the objection CESC issued notice both dated August 14,2003 asking the second petitioner to substantiate his objection and the petitioner to react on the objection A legal notice dated August 20, 2004 was sent by Advocate for the third respondent calling upon CESC to give the connection. Alleging inaction on the part of CESC a writ petition (copy whereof bears affirmation date August 21,2004) was moved before this Court by the third respondent The petitioners were not made parties in that writ petition Letter dated August 14,2003 issued by CESC was also not disclosed in that case. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated September 23, 2004 directing CESC to give supply to the petitioner When the petitioners found that arrangements were being made to give supply they took out this writ petition dated January 10, 2005 Notice was served on the respondents on January 12, 2005 On January 14, 2005 hurriedly supply was given to the third respondent

(3.) I have no hesitation in saying that on the facts of the case the third respondent was not entitled to get supply through the land in question For getting supply he was to get his right over the land in question established before the civil Court Once the second petitioner claimed ownership, CESC ought not to nave submitted to the order dated September 23, 2004 without first bringing to the notice of the Court that the second petitioner had raised an objection in the capacity of alleged owner of the land. There is nothing to show that CESC brought such fact to the notice of the Court that made order in the writ petition of the third respondent The conduct of the third respondent is far from satisfactory It seems to me that he somehow wanted to get the supply behind the back of the writ petitioners. There is no valid reason whey the petitioners were not added as parlies in the writ petition. I find little to accept the case of the third respondent that letter of CESC dated August 14, 2003 had not been received by the third respondent before September 23, 2004. It is curious that though the older was obtained by him on September 23,2004. long thereafter he made hurried arrangement for supply effected on January 14, 2005, when notice of this writ petition had been served on January 12, 2005 As a matter of fact, the third respondent was not entitled to get supply unless he established his right to get supply using the land in question I hold that order obtained by the third respondent in his writ petition is not binding on the petitioners, and that CESC, on the facts of the case, ought not to have given supply without keeping the petitioners informed of the facts